In Plain Text: Anchor Baby Policy Is Unconstitutional

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

This seems like the type of thing that should be obvious but apparently isn't. The way the anchor baby policy is being applied, is tantamount to allowing a criminal to keep his ill gotten gains, if he can get it deposited into his bank account before being caught.

Who really believes that it makes sense?, that if two illegals make a third person, now they're all legal? It seems clearly fallacious. It's the immigration equivalent of two wrongs making a right.

a reply to: hammanderr

End enumeration at Birth. The gateway to statutory 'US Citizenship' and government benefit is the social security franchise (and SSN).

Since the government can legislate its own policy, they would just have to impose a requirement for proof of statutory US Citizenship from one parent to enroll.

If such could not be provided, the child born in the USA would still be a constitutional citizen and national, but not a US Citizen, and when of legal age to contract with the government could enroll themselves, and then use their new US Citizen status to help naturalize their parents.

In the mean time their parents would default to non-citizen of the United States like those of American Samoa.

a reply to: hammanderr

Who really believes that it makes sense?, that if two illegals make a third person, now they're all legal?

That doesn't happen, and if you think it does that is part of them problem.
Might parents be allowed to stay, sure.
But they don't get legal status.

That argument is no different than the argument that the 2nd amendment only protects people's right to guns in the context of an organized militia. Yet the same people who make this argument against the 14th amendment, strangely have a totally different take on interpreting the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's not anti-immigrant, it's anti- illegal immigrant.

a reply to: buster2010

The SCOTUS is NOT the final authority... The people are. The SCOTUS are indoctrinated through schooling and precedent to the point that sometimes the PEOPLE must be called on to read the constitution as it sits.

Just because the SCOTUS ruled that something is constitutional does not make it so.

The TSA is blatantly against the 4th amendment, but the SCOTUS hasn't ruled it unconstitutional.

Obama Care is blatantly unconstitutional and the reasoning the SCOTUS used made zero sense, especially considering that Congress claimed the exact opposite in order to skirt passing it unconstitutionally, but they ruled it constitutional.

It's time that the people understand that the constitution was written plainly for a specific reason and that is so that the PEOPLE who grants it its' authority can easily and readily understand it.

There is no way that a reasonable person can claim that a non-resident alien who entered this country without permission could POSSIBLY be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, nor can their children.

Jaden

a reply to: theantediluvian
All of this is from the second link in the OP:

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.

See link in OP for that explanation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

I could keep going, as there is a mountain of evidence to show that the modern interpretation of the 14th amendment is contrary to the text and intent. That's why I included the link in the OP. Anyone who chooses to follow logic rather than dogma can find it all only a click away.

a reply to: Masterjaden

What about the portion of the people that don't feel as you do?

What about the portion that see no issue with the TSA or Obamacare?

How are the people going to decide who's right?

Also, jurisdiction literally means "subject to the laws of" ... are you saying these folk are not subject to the laws of the US?

How do you justify deporting them, then?

a reply to: ntech
You're exactly right, congress does have the power to redefine citizenship any time they like. If we wanted to make the anchor baby policy official, it would be as easy as passing a bill.

The main point I am trying to make with this thread is that the 14th amendment in no way prohibits us from changing our ridiculous immigration laws in respect to alien babies born in the US.

Friendly reminder to all who wish to participate in this discussion:

Please stay on topic and do not feed the trolls.

a reply to: Masterjaden

The SCOTUS is NOT the final authority

They kind of are.

The people are

In the sense that they vote for the President who is the one that appoints judges to the Supreme Court but it's a lifetime appointment and in the sense that if enough people can convince their States to call for an article IV convention, the US Constitution can be changed.

sometimes the PEOPLE must be called on to read the constitution as it sits.

By what means exactly?

Just because the SCOTUS ruled that something is constitutional does not make it so.

Legally it does. I despise the Citizens United ruling, I think it's the worst thing SCOTUS ever did. But, we're stuck with it until either the Constitution is amended or another case is brought before the Court that would allow them to revisit.

There is no way that a reasonable person can claim that a non-resident alien who entered this country without permission could POSSIBLY be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, nor can their children.

Most Constitutional scholars agree with birthright citizenship. Read the 14th Amendment

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: ntech
You're exactly right, congress does have the power to redefine citizenship any time they like. If we wanted to make the anchor baby policy official, it would be as easy as passing a bill.

The main point I am trying to make with this thread is that the 14th amendment in no way prohibits us from changing our ridiculous immigration laws in respect to alien babies born in the US.

So ... you're in favor of Congress stripping the citizenship from Americans who have been American citizens their whole lives?

That doesn't sound like a bit of an overreach of government power to you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: ntech
You're exactly right, congress does have the power to redefine citizenship any time they like. If we wanted to make the anchor baby policy official, it would be as easy as passing a bill.

The main point I am trying to make with this thread is that the 14th amendment in no way prohibits us from changing our ridiculous immigration laws in respect to alien babies born in the US.

So ... you're in favor of Congress stripping the citizenship from Americans who have been American citizens their whole lives?

That doesn't sound like a bit of an overreach of government power to you?

A new law would surely use a Grandfather clause.

There would be no way to distinguish past births.



[over reacting and assuming]

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Friendly reminder to all who wish to participate in this discussion:

Please stay on topic and do not feed the trolls.

Do you have examples of what items you feel are off-topic here?

Are decisions of the Supreme Court of no moment? Are the various interpretations of the Constitution and its Amendments not what you wish to talk about? I don't see anyone trolling the discussion.

Thank you kindly for any response.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: ntech
You're exactly right, congress does have the power to redefine citizenship any time they like. If we wanted to make the anchor baby policy official, it would be as easy as passing a bill.

The main point I am trying to make with this thread is that the 14th amendment in no way prohibits us from changing our ridiculous immigration laws in respect to alien babies born in the US.

So ... you're in favor of Congress stripping the citizenship from Americans who have been American citizens their whole lives?

That doesn't sound like a bit of an overreach of government power to you?

A new law would surely use a Grandfather clause.

There would be no way to distinguish past births.

[over reacting and assuming]

Thanks for the unnecessary personal commentary Xuenchen.

Although I always genuinely appreciate your input, are you speaking for OP now?

I didn't hear any indication that Realist intended some sort of "amnesty" here.

a reply to: Kali74
The Supreme Court has no more power over citizenship than congress does.

Congress can redefine citizenship any time. Supreme Court can only determine whether or not the change is constitutional. SC cannot override congress in legislation that is constitutional.

In terms of interpreting the Constitution as well as interpreting legislation in light of the Constitution, yes, the SCOTUS is, well, Supreme.

COTUS, Article III, Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

See also, Marbury v. Madison (1803) Link

Anchor babies are a huge problem . Too many illegals for too many years have taken advantage of the system and people have had enough. When you have two parents and neither are citizens of this Country, their child should not be a citizen of this Country. Common sense.

a reply to: Night Star

Why?
If they are born on US soil, and like the 14th says, they are US citizens.

We just assume every single one of them are going to be drains on the system.
How could we possibly know that unless we are just using broad generalizations.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Night Star

Why?
If they are born on US soil, and like the 14th says, they are US citizens.

We just assume every single one of them are going to be drains on the system.
How could we possibly know that unless we are just using broad generalizations.

So lets just have people from all over the world come on in and have their kids here and have an easy life because they had that kid here. Lets just reward bad behavior. Sorry, it's wrong no matter what. I wouldn't in my wildest dreams think of moving to another Country and doing such a thing. We have enough honest and law abiding immigrants coming here with great respect and going through the proper channels as it should be.