Posted on 01/26/2008 9:07:56 AM PST by MotleyGirl70
About every six months the population of the U.S. increases about as much as the population of Tallahassee. Who are these hundreds of thousands of new citizens? They are newborns, children of illegal aliens born in the United States - birthright citizens, "anchor babies" - not illegal aliens. This quirky legal right then allows the mother's parents and siblings to remain, and later a whole bunch of their relatives to immigrate legally. This why they are also known as "Jackpot babies."
Just consider Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the U.S. In 2006, 70 percent of the women giving birth in Parkland were illegal immigrants. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million to deliver these babies, the feds another $9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in $31.3 million. The average illegal patient is 25 years old and giving birth to her second anchor baby. We could also talk about California, but you get the point.
By law, illegal immigrants cannot be denied medical care based on their inability to pay or their immigration status. These women also receive free prenatal care, medication, car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
The U.S. and a few other countries offer citizenship to anyone born on their soil. The United Kingdom and Australia abandoned this practice in the 1980s after being abused by immigrants for many years.
Why do we allow this to continue? The 14{+t}{+h} Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside...
It was added to our Constitution right after the Civil War as part of a package of reforms to prevent any more injustices to African Americans, such as states denying citizenship to native born blacks. The drafters of the "Citizenship clause" made it clear from their debate, that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that the status of the parents of a child born within the territory of the U.S. determines whether of not that child is eligible for U.S. citizenship.
There have been surprisingly few Supreme Court opinions construing this clause - the results being a mixed bag of decisions. The lawyer in me wants to go into detail, but let me be mercifully brief: The latest case involved a terrorist who happened to be born in Louisiana, when his father, a native of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, was working as an engineer for Exxon. He returned to Saudi Arabia as an infant, took up with al Qaeda as an adult, was captured during a battle in Afghanistan and wound up imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.
The Supreme Court held that this Saudi, being Louisiana born, had a due process right as a citizen to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. This ruling simply does not comform with any of the text or history surrounding the adoption of the Citizenship Clause. Just being born in the U.S. doesn't cut it, because such an interpretation renders the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause entirely redundant. It is a well settled doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts - most certainly the Constitution - are not to be interpreted to make some words altogether redundant. In other words why didn't the drafters just say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States?" (Imagine two terrorists - man and wife jihadis - slipping past border guards into a U.S. city to set up a terrorist cell. The wife then gives birth to a child. Should this budding young terrorist be an instant American citizen?)
Help could be on the way, but don't hold your breath. In 2007, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced H.R. 1940, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. For those Americans who look to Europe - the cradle of our American civilization - for guidance, Ireland, in 2004 voted to end automatic citizenship. That was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of just being born there.
The political fallout of this bill could be enormous.
Patriotism is when the love of your own people comes first. Politics, for Democrats, is thinking of the next election, and not what is best for the next generation of Americans. With that in mind, illegal aliens and their progeny will continue to be one more group on the list of Democrat constituencies.
No
Why?
Don’t they know more than you?
Plyler Decision:
That the Texas law which withheld funds from local school districts for educating children not legally admitted into the United States and the authorization of these districts to deny these children enrollment, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
I never stated that I agree with any SCOTUS decision. However, I do accept their decisions and understand that Plyler is not likely to be overturned.
It’s a crime that thee is zero talk about this in Washington DC. I realize the obstacles to getting rid of alleged anchor baby interpretations of the 14th. But no one in DC ever expresses any distress over all the anchor babies being churned out. Rich Koreans and Asians come here 9 months pregnant to give birth so the kid has US dual citizenship to fall back on
Totally disgusted here at gutless wonders in Washington DC.
Bttt!
In Plyer v. Doe the SCOTUS ruled that illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution. ..... trumandogz
Plyler v. Doe did not specifically adddress the issue of anchor babies and stated that ALL children who are illegal in a particular State were under the jurisdiction of that particular State. The issue revolved over whether or not children who were not responsible for the illegal activities of their parents should be directly punished by witholding education.
However, you believe that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdictions thereof then you must also accept that illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while on U.S. soil. ...... trumandogz
That is a rather concrete interpretation as even Hermann Goering, as he awaited trial at Nuremberg, guarded by U.S. Army M.P.'s was being prosecuted by the U.S. Government for crimes committed on foreign soil.
Elk v. Wilkins defined "jurisdiction thereof" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows:
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
Plyler v. Doe never directly addressed the issue of citizenship solely by the virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
Elk v. Wilkins did.
The bottom line is that it took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to make Indians born on U.S. soil citizens solely by virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
The true bottom line is that these babies are issued a birth certificate with a U.S. origin. They, and most others, believe that makes them a U.S. citizen. And, that will be the eventual downfall of the U.S. because soon they will be able to vote.
You cannot change the past but you can change the future.
Why would voting rights for Natural Born Citizens lead to the downfall of the United States?
because their parents got them here illegally, and intentionally in most cases, to use our government systems to provide for them without ever having to earn it or pay for it one day in their life previously, and in some cases, live off that government largess for the rest of their lives.
First, they are not Natural Born Citizens. Second, when they get to voting age they will vote in any candidate that promises reperations for madre and padre along with all sorts of freebies in reward for their "struggle".
But the Indians were here legally.
So that is not the same.
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.