If our Politicians wanted to do anything about it, they would. It’s obvious they aren’t going to address the problem and the American people will suffer for it. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. They could settle this question in a couple of days if they wanted to. Reading the 14th Ammendment, it doesn’t have anything to do with people being born here but they try and make it sound like it does.
The author knows nothing about immigration law and makes a dirt common mistake.
He is confusing BIRTHRIGHT citizenship with an “anchor baby”
In 1996 the Republican congress did away with the “anchor baby”
The concept of anchor baby is that custody follows the american citizen. Hence the “anchor”.
Under CURRENT LAW, cutody follows the parents of the minor thus a birth right citizen goes with the deported parents.
JUST TO ADD TO THE MIX, under the current law those born of that citizen are only US citizens IF that illegal alien offspring has lived in the USA for ten years.
The author should actually study law before looking like a MSM journalist.
Info is available on http://www.uscis.gov under citizenship or obtaining a proof of citizenship certificate.
takes all of 2 minuts to look up.
See this article for precedents regarding denial of birthright citizenship for “Anchor Babies”:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={62ABC9F7-4274-4E09-87A4-5BDC94D65700}
“The Fourteenth Amendment Mess”
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/9/2002
“The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:
The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))
The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))
There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.
In essence, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, at the time the amendment was written, a person having a reciprocal relationship of allegiance and protection with the United States government. It was thus understood not to apply to persons whose presence in this country is transitory or illegal. For details of the evolution of this phrase and its interpretation by the courts, see this page on FILE’s web site. The key question that those who favor the contemporary misinterpretation of this phrase cannot answer is, why is the phrase there, if it means nothing, which is what their interpretation implies. Logic implies that it would only have been inserted if it modified the meaning of the amendment, which it does: by limiting the scope of persons to which it applies. The debate — adequately settled, in my view, by the precedents named above — can at most be over who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” not over whether this phrase means anything.
That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here. The courts have also long recognized an exception for the children of foreign diplomats, which exception would be unconstitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment granted automatic birthright citizenship to everyone.”
The author neglects government schooling. In my state it is about $13,000 to $15,000 a year per government school kid.
This is an antiquated law that must go. Are any of the candidates talking about it?
Mexico has argued that the US doesn’t have jurisdiction. But, of course that is WRT criminals. They want it all ways.
What kind of HTML is this? Such a deep essay, too bad to have a fatal distraction right on the critical point.
Absolutely must be stopped. Incredible and wrong!
The biggest factor in how politicians deal with this is that they are deathly afraid of being called racists (especially Republicans).
I don’t get it. If they are “anchor babies” toss them in the lake and move on.
Electing McCain will destroy what remains of our sovreignty.
ping
The REAL point is it has been going on for AT LEAST ten years. Soooo let's look at the real numbers over just the last ten years, not the 25 years they have been a problem.
112,000 kids. 345 million + 95 Million + 313 million in costs. Three Quarters of a BILLION and that is only ONE COUNTY
Then? Heck the anchor babies at Parkland are only the begining.
Then means ongoing hospital emergency room expenses for two decades because "they have no doctor." They just go to Parkland for whatever.
Then means subsidized daycare.
Then means free education for 13 - 14 years as most of them rent apartments and do not pay property tax.
And the folks that own houses around here wonder why their property taxes are through the roof.
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.