Skip to comments.Automatic-citizenship right at eye of political storm [Perversion of 14th Amendment]
Posted on 09/04/2010 11:54:20 AM PDT by SandRat
Story on the perversion of the 14th amendment and anchor babies.
(Excerpt) Read more at azstarnet.com ...
Border Anchor Babies Ping
No need to reinvent the wheel! Just read the Constitution and apply it as it was meant to be.
Way back when ... It was understood by the authors of the 14th Amendment that jurisdiction as to the child would be imputed from the status of the parents.
Oh, how politicians have gone wrong ... politicians who are frustrated legislators and therefore legislate from the bench.
The courts have given us an interpretation inconsistent with the original intent.
I agree with your post and wish to amplify it:
The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to readmit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.
The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).
It would seem that this juristiction thing needs to be discussed a bit more. Then we can set a course to correct the matter and be done with it.
No anchor babies, and no citizenship for anyone who has entered this country illegally, understand?
We need a Constitutional lawyer or an Immigration lawyer (maybe) to tell us where the original intent was deviated from.
I am not sure jurisdiction is the right starting point.
I think it was the ‘Wong’ case before the Supreme Court in 1898, though it technically reiterated the standing original intent it opened the door by trying to define or redefine domicile.
I also seem to remember from a college course that the USA is only one of not many nations that still practice giving citizenship cause you were born here.
At least I think this is the point or instance that changed it. Maybe not, I don’t know.
The 14th amendment was also designed to exclude the former political leaders of the South from holding federal or state office.
Instead of requiring states to let adult black men vote, it had a complicated provision (sec. 2) designed to force Southern states to let black men vote while not forcing Northern states to do the same since some Northern states did not allow black people to vote.
The only part of sec. 1 that they care about now is the part that confers citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. The part about "equal protection of the laws" was something of a dead letter from 1877 until 1954 or so, and now is ignored by programs that favor groups based on their race or sex.
China ‘birth tourism’ lures expectant moms to U.S.
August 28, 2010
SHANGHAI — What can $14,750 buy in modern China? For that price, Robert Zhou and Daisy Chao guarantee something lasting, with unquestioned future benefits: a U.S. passport and citizenship for a new baby.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Clip . . . . .
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Clip . . . . .
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "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."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
*No anchor babies, and no citizenship for anyone who has entered this country illegally, understand?*
Unfortunately, for us, these anchor babies have now grown up, and now are demanding everything free, and they are vocal.
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.