Posted on 05/13/2005 8:11:11 AM PDT by azhenfud
There is debate continuing to surface over America's Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that everyone born on U.S. soil be granted U.S. citizenship. Many have resolved it among themselves, having been misguided by unwilling lawmakers claiming there is nothing that can be done to deny illegal aliens the opportunity to complicate their deportation procedures with the birth of what is commonly known as "anchor babies".
This idea is however, false, predicated upon the fact politicians and lawmakers dare not appear to "evict" a "citizen" from these United States and that America is also too "compassionate" to do so. Although the Fourteenth Amendment appears clear in its requiring subjugation to U.S. law, that may possibly be in fact, an area of contention with illegal aliens.
Children of illegal aliens are minors in the care of legal guardian(s) not subject(s) of that same law. Since many illegal aliens, if they have knowledge of that "right", will appeal to the Consular's offices of their respective countries when the first need arises, such exception may and should be taken to exclude those "anchor babies" from U.S. citizenship eligibility. Let's look at the matter in more simplistic terms comparable to what's happened to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. In doing so, we may determine how restrictions on eligibility for citizenship at birth may be enacted.
Federal and state laws have been enacted which restricted, modified, and in some cases even denied the constitutional right to bear arms with government touting such measures as a protection for U.S. citizens. They have, in fact, "denied" and "revoked" that right to some, limited the possession of arms types "in excess", required the registration of those who've exercised that right, and even placed restrictions as to how that right is exercised by making concealed weapons and mere possession of some types unlawful. All these restrictions and exceptions were placed upon a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and to bear arms.
Now, if the legislatures of both federal and state governments had a desire to stop illegal aliens from complicating the normal legal process of deportation, provisions requiring at least one parent to document their legal residency at the time of applying for a child's birth certificate should be enacted immediately. Those lacking that documentation could be issued provisional certifications differing in appearance from those of legal residents' or citizens'. Such measure would help assure those "anchors" remaining eligible for deportation along with the illegal parents.
Restrictions on the constitutional "right" of citizenship have equal legitimacy as do restrictions on the constitutional "right" to keep and bear arms. The time to clarify may be needed now more than ever before.
Border Ping
The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers citizenship upon “All person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, …” This second condition is universally overlooked in discussions about immigration and newborns.
Paragraph three, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution gives the Congress authority to make exceptions and regulations restricting the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
The responsible position, it would appear, is to encourage readers to lobby Congress for legislation that rests on these provisions of the Constitution and denies citizenship for children born in this country of illegal immigrant parents – people who have not subjected themselves, nor their offspring, to the jurisdiction of U.S. law and therefore not qualified for citizenship and the myriad benefits thereof. How can a newborn be considered a citizen when he is here illegally? Soft headed reasoning has conferred this much sought after status on countless thousands, encouraging all the more countless thousands to seek entry to this country by any means so their offspring can gain them access to our soft headed social benefits and take advantage of what law-abiding immigrants wait years for as they subject themselves to our laws.
Let us strive to become, once again, of nation ruled by law rather than be man. People in positions of power tend to corrupt the law as it restricts their actions by the same authority it secures our liberty.
On the one hand, I agree, deport illegal aliens, kids or no kids. However, given the fact the kids are US citizens coupled with thhe fact that trying to deport the parents of American citizens would be almost impossible in today's political climate...I'm not sure what the answer is...(other than seal the friggin border so they don't get here in the first place).
excellent point: since the libs have denegrated the second amendment without qualms, why cant the 14th suffer the same fate?
the issue of "anchor babies" is very hot, although it is currently in the background behind stopping the government - both elected and unelected - of aiding the invasion in order to increase the balance sheets of construction companies, food service companies, etc.
"anchor babies" will continue to rise as another flaw in the immigration law - CAN A CRIMINAL ELIMINATE HIS CRIMINALITY BY RELYING ON AN INNOCENT THIRD PARTY?
The reality of the situation is that sometime in the future the US will eventually absorb Mexico. The Southwest US is not going to 'secede'; rather, the tens of millions of Mexicans who have become Americanized will move to annex their former country.
I’m not sure that’s necessary. In fact, I’m pretty sure it isn’t necessary.
As evidence I’ll point out the San Leandro Unified School District where they had some sort of teacher’s aide that was illegal and had been working there 15 years or so. Her husband was also illegal, as was at least one child.
They had been in the U.S. for 18 years or something and had failed to try and take advantage of the last “legalization” gimmick.
In the meantime they had two (?) children while they lived here that were considered U.S. citizens.
It was a mess but to make a long story short they deported their butts – or it sure looked like deportation was in the bag the last I heard of it.
If they can deport someone like that from San Leandro, CA, I think it’s pretty safe to say they can deport them from pretty much anywhere.
Agree with your points regarding the flow of populations and the militarization of the border.
What happens as a result of the influx? My guess, not much...Mexico stays Mexico and the US keeps it's borders.
>>>"No civilization/culture in all of recorded history has been able to stop/prevent migratory flows"
1) North Korea... nobody leaves.
2) Switzerland... only the rich get in.
3) Germany... those Jews who didn't emigrate were slaughtered.
4) Mexico... ever try to walk into that country illegally?
5) Any South American country... ditto.
6) New Zealand... has rational system and they stop illegals.
I'd have to say there are many countries throughout history that refute your claim.
Hoppy
The US has ignored this problem for too long, past the point of no return. There are almost 30 million illegal immigrants in the country and increasing. Almost a quarter of Mexico’s interior population has crossed the border illegally against international and US law. Half of the California population is now illegal immigrants or children of immigrants, with the lion’s share of these parents probably who were to illegal too, therefore the numbers of illegal incidents in this country are much higher than 30 million.
Illegal immigration and the increasing population by their anchor babies has turned the tide now to where they represent the majority vote in many us communities. The city of Los Angles will elect its first Hispanic mayor soon, Villaraigosa. While many of the smaller towns in CA have already adopted Hispanic city councils who are staunch anti American.
This a county of immigrants, and the Hispanic culture is not the problem, but when these politicians whom are well connected with the Mexican government get into us office they have frequently abused their power to erode US laws of civility. For example Villaraigosa once was president of an ACLU chapter, has voted against tough penalties for Latino gang memers, and rejected harsh penalty for sex offenders, which illustrate Hispanics who are being voted in by a population that entered the country illegally are about as far left as one can get.
California politicians now and are passing laws to represent the constitutes of Mexico, such as in state tuition, free health care, education, subsidized, housing utilities and insurance for Mexican nationals residing illegally here in the US. The problem with this type of politics is they do not represent the US constituents, and once in office their agenda is to legalize the invasion from Mexico, to increase there voting power and their far left socialist agenda.
The Constitution was meant to protect US citizens and democracy, but by allowing the 14th amendment’s anchor babies who are hungry for free transfer of US wealth to their families; the constitution has left the door wide open for socialism and the death of democracy.
thanks for refuting a defeatist
"rather, the tens of millions of Mexicans who have become Americanized will move to annex their former country"
What former country, the wind, sand and a few tumble weeds?
"The Constitution was meant to protect US citizens and democracy, but by allowing the 14th amendment’s anchor babies who are hungry for free transfer of US wealth to their families; the constitution has left the door wide open for socialism and the death of democracy."
Yes, and yes. I was a welfare worker for five years in San Antonio. The fake document trade is alive and well everywhere. And 'hide in plain sight' works well enough - ask the terrorists!
I harp and harp, could paper my walls with all the letter from Hutchinson and Gonzalez. They'll do nothing to stop the supply of cheap labor, I guarantee it. They'll never get a vote from me, either.
There was a lot of sentiment a few years back about having someone challenge the constitutionality of giving the newborns of illegal aliens American citizenship. All it would take is challenging one baby born and taking the legality to court.
This should still be done. If done in a region where the first few judges were not liberals, it would become a huge media issue and would rally most Americans to the side of "fairness," meaning, if you're here illegally then your children shouldn't automatically become citizens.
And if the SCOTUS ultimately ruled in favor of the illegals, then there just might be enough sentiment for a Constitutional Amendment.
But don't expect a single politican to touch the issue.
If we were invaded and occupied by a foreign army -- say, China or the old Soviet Union -- and the soldiers and their camp followers had children here during the occupation, would ANYONE even THINK about recognizing the children of the occupation forces as "citizens" when the war was over? Of course not -- they'd be sent home with their parents.
1. 'US soil' is Washington, DC, not the 'states'. (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 17)
2. the 14th Ammendment does nothing except say citizens of the United States are also residents of the State of Virginia.
3. securing the borders is a FEDERAL enumerated power. The Feds can stop them at the border, but if they pass the border into a State, the Feds NO LONGER HAVE JURISICTION unless they can prove some sort of documentation (expired visa, etc) or 'crime' (under natural law) has been commited.
4. There is NO WAY the federal government will EVER admit it has no authority outside Washington DC!
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
Those were all poor examples - anybody can get into any of those countries (with the exception of NK) and work in whatever black market economy they may have. The best example is Japan; however, anyplace with contiguous landmass, forget it.
I agree; we need to amend the constitution. The SECOND-generation descendants of these babies born here from illegal aliens STILL think they are Mexicans FIRST, Americans last. They usually align themselves with La Raza, and want to take back the Southwest for Mexico. They don't even appreciate their US citizenship. Most are anti-government, anti-law enforcement and EXPECT free education, health care and handouts. And don't expect them to rally around the flag or pledge their allegiance!
What Constitution are you reading?
Ok, I've been loathe to chime in on this thread up until this point, but now I have to say something.
First of all, let's take the phrase "US soil" out of our vocabulary. It's not in the Constitution and doesn't have anything to do with this debate. Besides that, I'm not even sure how you get that US soil only means the District. Clearly, the Constitution states that the District will be the seat of the government, but it doesn't say much else.
Second, the purpose of the Amendment was clear. Up until the Civil War, there was a great deal of debate as to whether United States citizenship even existed. Certainly state citizenship existed, but not necessarily US citizenship. Even those that argued in favor of US citizenship claimed that it naturally flowed by virtue of a person's state citizenship; I am a citizen of Virginia; thus, I am also a citizen of the United States. The problem with this, from the amendment's framers' viewpoint, was that slave holding states did not consider blacks to be citizens. So, even if there WAS US citizenship (which no one really agreed on) blacks weren't US citizens because they weren't citizens of any states.
The 14th Amendment was to end this debate once and for all. It established United States citizenship, and states that any citizen born in any state (i.e., the United States) is a U.S. citizen. We know that this is the intention of Congress not only from the extended debate over the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, but also from common sense--if what you are saying is true--that the United States is only the District, why does Congress need to pass a constitutional amendment? Congress has exclusive and total authority over the District; it didn't need to pass an amendment to do what you're saying--it just does it.
We know what Congress intended to do with this clause of Section 1. Unlike a lot of the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, it's crystal clear. Besides the plain language of the amendment, which is hardly even arguable, we know from the debates what Congress was trying to do.
Like it or not, this is what the Amendment does. Any other reading is just plain wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.