It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Plain Text: Anchor Baby Policy Is Unconstitutional

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The 14th amendment to the United States Constitution was a milestone in America's struggle for civil rights, making it unconstitutional for Federal, state, and local governments to discriminate against citizens based on race or any other factor. This officially guaranteed that all citizens would be given equal protection and rights under the law.

It was written specifically to put an end to segregation and discrimination against black Americans. At the time, its intent was crystal clear. It was really about making the Civil Rights Act a permanent part of the constitution. These days, I see the 14th invoked as a reaching effort to validate all sorts of policies. The anchor baby policy, though, is not even debatable.

Step one in guaranteeing equal protection for all citizens is to define what a citizen is. Hence, the Citizenship Clause was written into the 14th amendment:



Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Link

Those words in bold incontestably make the anchor baby policy unconstitutional. Notice there are two conditions to citizenship:
1. Born or naturalized
2. Subject to the jurisdiction of the US

If the anchor baby policy had been the intent, there would be no need for part 2. 'Subject to the jurisdiction of the US' is a qualfier just as important as being born or officially naturalized.

So who is subject to US jurisdiction? Not a trick question; the answer is logical. US citizens, and children of US citizens, are subject to US jurisdiction. Who is not subject to US jurisdiction? Diplomats, illegal aliens, and anyone else without US citizenship.

There are so many pressing issues facing our nation, it's a shame we have to waste so much time arguing over things that are right there in plain text.

For further explanation:
Link



+4 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
You do know the 14th had to go through the SCOTUS to make sure it was constitutional right? Also anyone with the exception of Diplomats do fall under the jurisdiction of the US as long as they are in our borders or territories.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

An interesting read for you...

Did you know that even "anchor babies" were deported in the 1930s during the Great Depression? Irony maybe? It's said we're going to go through another great depression very soon.. Same talk of illegal aliens and anchor babies being deported.



Source

Though, it didn't happen to just Mexicans. It included ALL immigrants, young and old.

Here is a little more info:



In February 1930 in San Antonio, Texas, five thousand Mexicans and Mexican Americans gathered at the city's railroad station to depart from the United States for resettlement in Mexico. In August, a special train carried another two thousand to central Mexico. Most Americans are familiar with the forced relocation in 1942 of 112,000 Japanese Americans from the West Coast to internment camps. Far fewer are aware that during the Great Depression, the Federal Bureau of Immigration (after 1933, the Immigration and Naturalization Service) and local authorities rounded up Mexican immigrants and naturalized Mexican American citizens and shipped them to Mexico to reduce relief roles. In a shameful episode in the nation's history, more than 400,000 repatriados, many of them citizens of the United States by birth, were sent across the U.S.-Mexico border from Arizona, California, and Texas. Texas's Mexican-born population was reduced by a third. Los Angeles lost a third of its Mexican population.


Source


After President Herbert Hoover appointed William N. Doak as secretary of labor in 1930, the Bureau of Immigration launched intensive raids to identify aliens liable for deportation. The secretary of labor believed that removal of illegal aliens would reduce relief expenditures and free jobs for native-born citizens. Altogether, 82,400 were involuntarily deported by the federal government. Federal efforts were accompanied by city and county pressure to repatriate destitute Mexican American families. In January 1931, the Los Angeles County welfare director asked federal immigration officials to send a team to the city to supervise the deportation of Mexicans. The presence of federal agents, he said, would "have a tendency to scare many thousands of alien deportables out of this district, which is the intended result." In one raid in February 1931, police surrounded a downtown park popular with Mexicans and Mexican Americans and held some four hundred adults and children captive for over an hour. The threat of unemployment, deportation, and loss of relief payments led hundreds of thousands of others to leave.




edit on 30-8-2015 by StallionDuck because: Added more info and sources



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The Courts disagree with you




The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.





Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common–law rule of acquired citizenship by birth,8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal la


14th


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
You do know the 14th had to go through the SCOTUS to make sure it was constitutional right?


You do know what you just said is totally incorrect, right? The court doesn't test the Constitution, Amendments, or even proposed amendments... It interprets them and challenges the law against that interpretation. Congress tomorrow could pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring anyone born in the US to a parent born in El Salvador is not a US citizen and there's nothing the scotus can say about it because its an amendment.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Illegals aren't under our jurisdiction? They are granted some rights just like a citizen is.

They can be charged with crimes commited in our nation no?

How is that not under our jurisdiction?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

You do know the 14th was not created to grant citizenship to those that fall under the jurisdiction of other countries, right?

You do know that only citizens and legal residents of the U.S. fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. right?

Or that there has NEVER been a Supreme Court ruling on whether the children of illegal immigrants can be considered citizens?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
You do know the 14th had to go through the SCOTUS to make sure it was constitutional right? Also anyone with the exception of Diplomats do fall under the jurisdiction of the US as long as they are in our borders or territories.
No, it didn't /have/ to go through the SCOTUS. That's part and parcel of the Constitutional Amendment process. Once ratified by the required majority of States, it becomes Constitutional law, which the SCOTUS is thus required to uphold.

And no, not everyone excepting Diplomats fall under US jurisdiction. Anyone finding themselves on the sovereign territory acknowledged by the USA as a foreign consulate are not subject to any US authority.

I learned these things back in 1985. What's your excuse?


edit on 30-8-2015 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
The Courts disagree with you




The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.





Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common–law rule of acquired citizenship by birth,8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal la


14th


You left out a very significant part of that ruling of 1898. In the case of the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, the parents WERE legal residents of the U.S. when they gave birth, but subsequently left the country, sacrificing their eligibility for citizenship. The court case was a result of them being denied re-entry to the U.S.

A significant distortion of the facts.
edit on 30-8-2015 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Wow, Trump has really reignited the hate fires of the all too vocal minority hasn't he? Why is it that everyone is a wannabe Constitutional scholar come election time? This was put to bed by the SCOTUS in 1873 in Miller's majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases:


To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [p74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

edit on 2015-8-30 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad
The case you refer to was United States vs. Wong Kim Ark.


Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco around 1871, to Chinese parents legally domiciled and resident there at the time, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the specific circumstances of his birth, which included that he was the child of foreigners permanently domiciled and resident in the U.S. at the time of birth.

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".


Ark's parents were permanent residents of the US, and he had been born here. This was a time when moving back to China wasn't so easy as buying a plane ticket, so there was a reasonable assumption that he would permanently reside in the US as well. His parents wanted to become naturalized citizens, but anti-Chinese immigration laws prohibited that.

Not the first time the Supreme Court ruled the wrong way.
m.mic.com...
edit on 30-8-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Didn't I just see you in another thread accusing conservatives of overplaying the victim-of-hate card?

Do they not have mirrors where you live?
edit on 30-8-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

The jurisdiction clause you bolded the op is for diplomats, you know the ones with immunity that are literally not under our jurisdiction?
From the ruling

The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;


Everone elaw is under the jurisdiction of the states for better or worse.

The worst part about all of this is we are demonizeing some one who had no choice in the matter. The kid didn't make the mom do it, why should the kid be punished?
edit on thSun, 30 Aug 2015 14:52:45 -0500America/Chicago820154580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80
Do you think the Supreme Court was right about Dredd Scott vs. Sanford?
Plessy vs. Ferguson?

Supreme Court Justices are humans, too. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are reversed.

Apparently this needs to be said: the only thing concrete about US government is the constitution, and even it can be amended. Judicial precedents get overturned all the time.
edit on 30-8-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist




Ark's parents were permanent residents of the US, and he had been born here. This was a time when moving back to China wasn't so easy as buying a plane ticket, so there was a reasonable assumption that he would permanently reside in the US as well. His parents wanted to become naturalized citizens, but anti-Chinese immigration laws prohibited that.


Anti-Chinese immigration laws born of the same xenophobia and racism that is rearing its ugly head once more among a new generation of "traditionalists" who are easily worked into a frothy-mouthed frenzy by hate mongering politicians and fear mongering media. Don't you see that you're just continuing the time honored tradition of irrationally hating immigrants?


Not the first time the Supreme Court ruled the wrong way.


Clearly your considered opinion, I assume not born of any legal education or practice and coming 147 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, should carry more weight than the majority opinion of the SCOTUS a mere 5 years after the 14th Amendment's adoption in the Slaughterhouse cases AND reaffirmed 30 years later in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

You're beating a horse that's been dead for more than a hundred years.
edit on 2015-8-30 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

'Blah blah blah racist blah blah that's my best attempt at logical debate blah blah.'



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: theantediluvian

Didn't I just see you in another thread accusing conservatives of overplaying the victim-of-hate card?

Do they not have mirrors where you live?


Yes you did and it's in no way a contradiction to what I'm saying now. In fact, let me expand upon my point. Conservatives are being indoctrinated en masse to believe that not only are their rights being taken away from them, so is THEIR COUNTRY. For every issue, there's a spin that makes conservatives victims. Now that Donald Trump has tapped into the identity politics programming laid down by a couple of other billionaires starting in 2008 with the Tea Party "movement," I expect the anti-immigrant rhetoric to be off the charts insane.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

You're ignoring the argument I put forth about how the Citizenship Clause was interpreted by the SCOTUS *IMMEDIATELY* after the 14th Amendments adoption and the fact that the validity of this interpretation has continued to be REAFFIRMED in subsequent decisions of the SCOTUS.

You can't argue that.

You can say that the majority of justices in each of these courts was wrong but that's your inexpert opinion and has little bearing on the reality of what has already been put to rest time and time again. What you're attempting to do is rewrite history a century and a half later.

I'm sorry if I'm not being politically correct enough for you — I realize that's another thing the right is really big on these days (as they point their accusing fingers hypocritically at the left) — but it's a point of fact that anti-immigrant episodes such as The Yellow Peril were born of xenophobia and racism. Perhaps you'd like to pick up the mantle of revising that history too?
edit on 2015-8-30 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist



Do you think the Supreme Court was right about Dredd Scott vs. Sanford?
Plessy vs. Ferguson?


Not at all, but since they got those wrong should we now not listen to anything they say?
I am sure there are some things you agree with that they ruled on, how are you able to do that with those cases you just listed in mind?
Or is it different then.

Sounds like you are saying they made a mistake when they said that jurisdiction is defined as those at have to follow our laws?
Would you mind explaining that?

Diplomats don't really have to follow our laws, and that is who that is written for.
It is in plain text




top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join