Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Immigration Immigration Political Forum - For topics and discussions about illegal immigrants and immigrant rights


Thanks Tree31Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 23rd, 2015, 01:43 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
roastpork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,321
Illegal anchor babies shouldn't count.

Illegal South American and Mexican Anchor babies were never meant to be included in the 14th.

400,000 'Anchor Babies' Born in U.S. Each Year

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for an end to birthright citizenship has focused new attention on the law deemed to grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents.

Children gaining birthright citizenship are pejoratively referred to as "anchor babies" because they provide an anchor in the U.S. for family members seeking to enter the country legally.

When anchor babies reach age 21, they can petition the government to grant their parents and siblings permanent resident status.

The number of babies gaining birthright citizenship has been steadily rising and is now estimated to top 300,000 and reach as high as 400,000 a year, according to John Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The Pew Hispanic Center puts the estimate at 340,000 a year.
In the most recent analysis, nearly three-quarters of all children of undocumented immigrants were U.S. citizens, and the children of illegals cost taxpayers some $52 billion a year in education expenses alone, Judicial Watch disclosed.

Nearly 4 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. have at least one child who is a citizen. And 66 percent of the immigrants who were granted permanent residency in a recent year were sponsored by family members who were American citizens.

Federal agents recent raided several sites in California that allegedly provided thousands of pregnant Chinese women the opportunity to give birth in the U.S. and thereby gain American citizenship for their children, The Fiscal Times reported.

But critics charge that providing citizenship to the children of illegal aliens was never the intent of the law.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, 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 of the State wherein they reside."

The law was intended to protect the rights of native-born freed slaves in the years following the Civil War. The U.S. did not limit immigration in 1868, so there were no illegal immigrants and the granting of citizenship to illegals was therefore not an issue.

In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard from Michigan indicated the intent of the 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."Now several members of Congress are taking aim at birthright citizenship along with Donald Trump.

"I don't have any doubt that the immigration statement that Trump put out is going to help provide momentum for a number of different pieces of immigration enforcement legislation, and especially birthright citizenship," Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who has co-sponsored a bill to restrict birthright citizenship, told the Washington Examiner.

Although some argue that changing the law would require a constitutional amendment, Feere of the CIS said: "Congress could without a doubt clarify the scope of the 14th Amendment through legislation."
King's bill would confer citizenship only on children born in the U.S. who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, or member of the U.S. military.

Said King: "I'm glad Donald Trump has set this up on the table and now the American public can have an open discussion."
Thanks from caconservative and kbear

Last edited by imaginethat; August 23rd, 2015 at 05:31 PM.
roastpork is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 02:29 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,654
The constitution just lays out the ground rules, the statutes are the real rules, with all the specifics, that's how congress implements the constitution, and clearly congress said that anyone born in the US, unless their parents had diplomatic immunity, was a US citizen.
There are various interpretations of the 14th amendment, and it's not clear which interpretation would prevail.
Even if the 14th amendment didn't confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens, the statute in place does.
If the congress changed the statute, to withhold citizenship from the children of illegal aliens, then the courts would get a chance to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
My own opinion is that congress won't change the statute, it would alienate too many voters for too many years.
The Democrats can only hope that the Republicans make this an issue, there are millions of Americans whose parents were in the country illegally, 8% of the children born in the US have at least one illegal parent.
Changing the law, evn just attempting to change the law, would tell these millions of voters that the Republican party thinks they aren't worthy of being American, but that the Democrats are there for them.
That also tells the legal Mexican Americans that they are not valued by the GOP, because this kind of debate always has a lot of racist invective.
And racist invective, even though it's directed at someone else already has caused Asian Americans to flock to the Democratic Party.

There are people in the GOP leadership that believe the only way the GOP can remain relevant is to court the Hispanic vote, that's the attraction of Jeb Bush, his Mexican wife, and Mexican American children. But between the intended message, that the Republican Party is the party of the traditional values so dear to the hearts of our Hispanic brothers who we welcome to the Party, there's the Donald, pointing out that those Mexicans have some serious problems, they are rapists, they are murderers, and a few I assume are decent people.......but not many, so lets just get rid of them.
Thanks from waitingtables
goober is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 03:50 PM   #3
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,529
We need to stop anchor babies right now
Thanks from roastpork and caconservative
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 03:53 PM   #4
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 25,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman View Post
We need to stop anchor babies right now
First the child labor laws are a pain to get around. And next, it's a pain tying enough of them together to get the weight up to be a good anchor.
Thanks from Sabcat and MichaelT
RNG is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 05:32 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
First the child labor laws are a pain to get around. And next, it's a pain tying enough of them together to get the weight up to be a good anchor.
Plus, they've got to be fed, clothed, housed when they're not on duty. It's too much trouble.
imaginethat is online now  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 07:00 PM   #6
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The constitution just lays out the ground rules, the statutes are the real rules, with all the specifics, that's how congress implements the constitution, and clearly congress said that anyone born in the US, unless their parents had diplomatic immunity, was a US citizen.
There are various interpretations of the 14th amendment, and it's not clear which interpretation would prevail.
Even if the 14th amendment didn't confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens, the statute in place does.
If the congress changed the statute, to withhold citizenship from the children of illegal aliens, then the courts would get a chance to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
My own opinion is that congress won't change the statute, it would alienate too many voters for too many years.
The Democrats can only hope that the Republicans make this an issue, there are millions of Americans whose parents were in the country illegally, 8% of the children born in the US have at least one illegal parent.
Changing the law, evn just attempting to change the law, would tell these millions of voters that the Republican party thinks they aren't worthy of being American, but that the Democrats are there for them.
That also tells the legal Mexican Americans that they are not valued by the GOP, because this kind of debate always has a lot of racist invective.
And racist invective, even though it's directed at someone else already has caused Asian Americans to flock to the Democratic Party.

There are people in the GOP leadership that believe the only way the GOP can remain relevant is to court the Hispanic vote, that's the attraction of Jeb Bush, his Mexican wife, and Mexican American children. But between the intended message, that the Republican Party is the party of the traditional values so dear to the hearts of our Hispanic brothers who we welcome to the Party, there's the Donald, pointing out that those Mexicans have some serious problems, they are rapists, they are murderers, and a few I assume are decent people.......but not many, so lets just get rid of them.
Quote:
The constitution just lays out the ground rules, the statutes are the real rules, with all the specifics, that's how congress implements the constitution, and clearly congress said that anyone born in the US, unless their parents had diplomatic immunity, was a US citizen.
This is not what the Constitution states. If it did, it would read like this, but it doesn't and you cannot explain why the jurisdiction clause exists:

Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
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.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explained what the jurisdiction clause meant, and so did the courts.
Thanks from caconservative
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 25th, 2015, 04:21 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
This is not what the Constitution states. If it did, it would read like this, but it doesn't and you cannot explain why the jurisdiction clause exists:



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.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explained what the jurisdiction clause meant, and so did the courts.
The court said it excludes diplomats and enemy occupation armies, in 1898, whatever they said before that does not apply.
What have the courts said since then?
goober is offline  
Old August 25th, 2015, 06:14 AM   #8
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The court said it excludes diplomats and enemy occupation armies, in 1898, whatever they said before that does not apply.
What have the courts said since then?
Ark did not make a ruling on illegal birthright citizenship; this has been addressed several times here. The only relevant post Ark reference in a ruling was footnote 10 in Plyler v Doe, and it directed to the portion of Ark that clarified that children born of illegals do not have birthright citizenship. No court has overturned all the post Fourteenth Amendment's court rulings rejecting that the Fourteenth Amendment granted birthright citizenship. There have been myriad citizenship laws enacted since the Fourteenth Amendment granting and denying citizenship all based on Section 5, and denying birthright citizenship to illegals via legislation would be no different than the other statutes.
Thanks from caconservative

Last edited by Jimmyb; August 25th, 2015 at 07:08 AM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old August 26th, 2015, 08:07 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 8,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Ark did not make a ruling on illegal birthright citizenship; this has been addressed several times here. The only relevant post Ark reference in a ruling was footnote 10 in Plyler v Doe, and it directed to the portion of Ark that clarified that children born of illegals do not have birthright citizenship. No court has overturned all the post Fourteenth Amendment's court rulings rejecting that the Fourteenth Amendment granted birthright citizenship. There have been myriad citizenship laws enacted since the Fourteenth Amendment granting and denying citizenship all based on Section 5, and denying birthright citizenship to illegals via legislation would be no different than the other statutes.
I said it's not clear, and it won't go to court unless the congress changes the law, and the political costs of changing the law are probably way too high.
So birthright citizenship is the law of the land, now and for the foreseeable future.
Thanks from waitingtables
goober is offline  
Old August 26th, 2015, 08:37 PM   #10
Commie Exposer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Blefuscu
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
I said it's not clear, and it won't go to court unless the congress changes the law, and the political costs of changing the law are probably way too high.
So birthright citizenship is the law of the land, now and for the foreseeable future.
There is nothing ambiguous in the ruling; it's a stupid ruling not based on the Fourteenth Amendment but on English common law, but it did not grant birthright citizenship to illegals. Whether it goes to court, the law is changed, or birthright citizenship is the law has no bearing on the meaning of Ark and the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Immigration

Tags
anchor, babies, count, illega, illegal



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anchor Babies are a farce there is no such thing! Patriot66 Current Events 75 August 27th, 2015 08:37 AM
The anchor baby myth johnwk Current Events 50 August 3rd, 2015 04:47 PM
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 and anchor babies kbear Immigration 62 December 31st, 2014 02:21 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.