Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Abathar
"He was returning to the U.S. with his wife for the birth of their first child."

GAHHHHHHHHHH! We need a constitutional amendment to replace the 14th that makes it crystal clear that you can't just jump the border and spit out a kid and have it be a citizen. My head is about to explode.

15 posted on 05/18/2007 10:20:09 AM PDT by rednesss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: rednesss

This anchor baby phenomenon isn’t the result of the 14th Amendment, it’s the fault of the courts and their officers (lawyers). This view of the 14th Amendment was tried in Plyler v. Doe in 1982. The court justified its decision that babies of illegal immigrants are citizens on the logic that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the staes in which they reside. The problem with this justification is that that isn’t what the 14th Amendment says! It says, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This was meant to preclude the children of foreign diplomats, enemy forces, American Indians and those simply on holiday from gaining automatic citizenship of our country by happenstance of their location at birth.

Lawyers... hmmph!


16 posted on 05/18/2007 10:28:57 AM PDT by pgyanke (Duncan Hunter 08--You want to elect a conservative? Then support a conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson