It’d be nice if all it took was one bill but it just ain’t gonna happen. State bills to curb illegal immigration, for example Proposition 187 in CA and other laws/propositions in other states, are quickly neutralized by state courts via any number of clearly made-up pretenses.
But this bill arguably (and it WILL be argued if it comes to it) conflicts with Amendment 14. So instead of being exposed to any number of state-level courts, it would inevitably be appealed through the infamous Ninth Circuit (Circus) court and further appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
By the time it reaches that far, half the justices and anybody who wants to live or do business in California will be speaking Spanish as a first language anyway.
All we really need to do is stop the money! If we didn't provide free health care, WIC, Housing Subsidies, food stamps, etc to non-citizens the 'anchor baby' issue would go away. You get more of what you pay for, and our government is paying for illegals to have children at the same time that it is paying (through planned parenthood) for citizens to not have children, and paying for in-school programs encouraging our children to not have children. When we payed poor people not to work, we got a lot of non-working poor people; when we stopped paying them they stopped being 'non-working'.
Regarding the 14th Amendment problem, illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, in my opinion. They presumably are subject to the jurisdiction of their countries of origin, unless you want to count our interactions with them in law enforcement or the simple fact that they are geographically inside our borders.
We are all stumbling around this thing and it has already been commented on by the Supreme Court! This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about.
It is in regards to the 14th amendment case which examined the issue of equal protection. Specifically, weather the State of Texas can legally withhold funds to schools to cover the extra costs of education illegal alien children and children of illegal aliens.
If one actually reads the entirety of Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 the question of "birthright NON-citizenship"is right there.
News/Activism 06/23/2007 10:01:07 AM CDT · 97 of 104
“...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
Ok, let's just have a good look here...
" The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. "
Sorry, but the SC said nothing about the issue of are they or are they not citizens. It refers to Supreme Court of the United States striking down a state statute denying funding for education to children OF illegal aliens. It does NOT say they are citizens.
In fact, it does state the following...
" To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)."
Clearly, anchor babies are NOT CITIZENS.
This is made absolutely clear further in the case...
" Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' siblings, (thus including them in the defintion of and as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship."
This is not saying that Children born in this country to illegal alien parents are U.S. citizens! It is clearly saying that they are MEXICAN CITIZENS.
one more time...
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States...
Jacob Howard, 1866
*************
Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' >>> siblings,<<< (thus including them as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship.
In other words the appellees children (siblings) are also considered appellees in the case and the appellees of the case are described by the Court as Mexican citizens.
Very clear and very simple. And it has been there all along.
But the libs are really good a pushing a catch phrase and "subject to the jurisdiction" from the 14th amendment is it on this issue.
All the SC has to do to settle this ENTIRE dispute was simply state that according to the XYZ (14th) Amendment the children of illegal aliens born in the u.S. are citizens of the u.S., therefore this case brought by The State of Texas has no merit.
Well, guess what those Supreme Court Justices did NOT say?
I do not believe that the Supreme Court just "kinda forgot" to address that aspect of the issue in the light of the fact that they are specifically comparing illegal aliens right to protection under the 14th amendment to American Citizens right to protection under the 14th amendment.
IOW, no sale, AB's are not American Citizens.