Anchor Babies, Away

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 Sept 2007 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[yorkie]

Oh, I almost forgot! Congratulations on the new grandbaby! (I think I remember you saying you have a new one!) There’s nothin’ like them! Spoil ‘em rotten and then give ‘em back to mom and dad! (It’s a grandparent’s right AND duty, you know.)

[Congressman Billybob]

If the anchor baby problem has already been eliminated, what explains late-term pregnant Mexicans sneaking into the US now, some dying on the trip, most having their children in US hospitals? That wave still exists. How do you explain it?

John / Billybob

[CottonBall]

As long as the Dems have control of both houses, nothing will be done.

I wouldn't blame the Dems only. The Republicans in the Senate masterminded Amnesty I, at the insistence of the Republican president. The current crop of RINOs would balk at this just as much as the Dems. They MUST be replaced, first!

[LowOiL]

We are only one of 33 countries in the world that still has birthright citizenship for anyone born on their soil [save for diplomats] and the only developed country.

[longtermmemmory]

What immigration lawyers do is argue a “special needs” and not mere citizenship since mere citizenship earns a return trip home.

Generally it is, single mother fleeing abusive domestic violence relationship, the child has a catastrophic medical need which only US Medicine can treat, or something like that.

Much of it is also related to the fact that once the child turns 18 they can THEN return to the USA as a citizen and start serial emigrating their parents. However that is adult serial immigration, and not “anchor baby” where a minor essentially is claiming custody of the parents instead of the other way around.

One key indicator is the fact that lawyers can not do anchor baby serial immigration cases any more.

We have to look at the change in the applications that are being filed.

If we really wanted to have fun we should do an in depth examination of the immigration lawyer conduct before the immigration service and courts. Sham corporations, manipulation of medical needs, sham marriages, knowingly filing pointless assylum claims, and even domestic violence claims which only exist in immigration applications.

The wave you cite also exists just to have citizenship status regardless of whether or not the child is mispercieved an anchor.

The MSM, in its usual incompetence in reporting the law, has worked overtime to NOT inform the public as this decades old change in the law.

Respectfully submitted sir.

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you. I live, I learn. The expertise around here is impressive.

John / Billybob

[Jim Noble]

Don't you think that being subject to detention, hearings and other procedings in Article III courts, and forced removal to another country constitutes the plain meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of"?

I like your argument, but I am certain (and I bet you are, too) that a law removing citizenship from future anchor babies would be declared unconstitutional in about five seconds (since such a law does not enforce by appropriate legislation Section 1 of XIV but rather repeals that part of XIV).

Congress could not bar women from voting by its power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, Amendment XIX, and I'm quite confident Congress cannot do this, either.

[FreedomCalls]

Bump.

[Allisio Rex]

John Armor is completely correct. The Amendment 14th in the Constitution clearly states that in order to be considered U.S. Citizens “ 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.”
Now,first of all our founding fathers were talking about people coming from Europe and not the millions upon millions of non-Whites. Second, children of illegal aliens are NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE in which they are born, the same as their illegal parents, and don’t reside in the State as their presence is not legitimate.
The 5th clause in the Amendment is the key issue here in placing additional restrictions to this Citizenship issue. Congress was given the power to enforce,BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION,the provision of this article (Article 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Therefore, no referendum is necessary to add additional restrictions to who can be a U.S. Citizen and who can never be.
This issue is discussed on the blog:
http://www.usapoliticaltyranny.info

State registrars, Town,Cities, Hospitals have the right to stamp the Birth Certificates of children of people who cannot prove that they are legally here as follows:
NOT A U.S. CITIZEN-NOT SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE.

[Fishrrman]

Such a law would be legal, because the Constitution permits it. It would mean a child born in a Tucson, or San Diego, or Laredo hospital of Mexican parents, would be a Mexican child. The anchor baby problem would be over. No more pregnant women would die in deserts of the Southwest, trying to get to a US hospital to have their “American” child

John, I've posted _my_ solution to the "anchor baby problem" before on FR, but I'll restate it. How about a critique?

This issue will not be decided until a clear interpretation of the 14th Amendment has been codified by the United States Supreme Court.

But bear in mind that the Court doesn't simply issue opinions "out of the air". There must be cases thrust before it upon which it will rule.

I think the Court could be forced into doing so. Here's how:

This will require the cooperation of sympathetic civic officials in one or more states (hopefully 3 in separate U.S. Federal Districts) who are absolutely willing to go to the mat on the issue and who will not lose their resolve as the case progresses through the court system. (As an aside, the Court might choose to ignore a "test case" from a single district, but would probably not be able to do so if cases sprung up from multiple districts.)

Here's how such test cases would be ignited:

I am _presuming_ that for births, birth certificates are issued by the city, municipality, or other governmental authority that has jurisdiction over the location where a birth occurs. Since big-city governments are "illegal friendly", I would think the test cases would have to be ignited from rural areas or small cities that are having problems with illegals.

What must be done is, when a birth occurs to someone who is apparently illegal, authorities must question her. If she admits to being illegal, they must issue a birth certificate that specifically states that the newborn shall not be considered an American citizen. The certificate should clearly state something to the effect of, say, "non-citizen birth on American soil".

Of course, the issuance of a "non-citizen birth certificate" will be immediately challanged by civil rights groups, perhaps even by government officials on higher levels. This is to be expected.

The local officials must stand their ground, for - of course - they will be challenged in the lower courts. And thus, the case (hopefully, multiple cases) will be generated, and progress through the system.

We will almost certainly lose at the trial level, but again, this is to be expected, and welcomed, for we WANT the issue to be appealed "upward".

And we must keep the heat up as the case progresses through the courts. With each loss, we must keep pushing it higher, and eventually, it will reach the high court.

I would not be foolish enough to speculate on how the Court would rule. But it has ruled in previous instances that _some_ babies born on American soil are NOT citizens (i.e., births to foreign diplomats).

I think we have a fighting chance to win. Even if we lose, it will clarify the issue once and for all, and perhaps the loss, combined with increasing anger about the illegal flood from native Americans will force Congress to consider a Constitutional Amendment to correct the 14th Amendment.

I have yet to see posted by ANYone a solution on how to correct the wrongly-interpreted 14th Amendment. I believe that the course I have outlined above - the ad-hoc issuance of "non-citizen" birth certificates, and the Court test that would follow - could do just that.

- John

[longtermmemmory]

The 1996 law which eliminated anchor babies has been upheld repreatedly.

You are confusing birthright citizenship with the immigration issue.

See the above posts.

[janetgreen]

Stratton will find out about it. :^) Thanks for your excellent article.

jstratton@orlandosentinel.com

[Age of Reason]

Any child born of a woman who is here legally should be American.

Only a child born of an American citizen, should be American, period.

[Elyse]

Many foreign nationals, who were U.S. residents, have been drafted; but there's a catch. The potential draftee can claim exemption as an alien; but generally, if does that, he is barred from citizenship (there are exceptions based on treaties).

Yes, there is the catch. If an illegal alien has registered with Selective Service or used fraudulent documents to stay in the US, he can receive a letter stating he has come up for the draft, but until he takes the oath of loyalty and enters the military he has not been drafted. After he takes the oath of loyalty he is then under the jurisdiction of the United States.

[bcsco]

Congratulations on the new grandbaby!

Thanks! She's sure a sweetheart. We visited the 16th thru the 21st. 200+ photos, etc. Grandma's been carrying around an album of the best to work, etc.

[dennisw]

The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. Some 380,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data. The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the United States, whose citizenship at birth is governed by international treaty.

“Anchor Babies”

The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as “anchor babies.” Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. “anchor” for an extended immigrant family.

While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.

Thus, the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens not only represent additional U.S. population growth, but act as ‘anchors’ to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally. In fact, an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil. Some come legally as temporary visitors; others enter illegally. Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible.

[dennisw]