Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It also estimates the total federal net cost of households headed by illegal immigrants at under $10.4 billion, a small fraction of what this message claims.
Gee only 10 billion? What a bargain. Thanks gary. That 10 billion would go a long way helping U.S. citizens. I'll gladly pay double the price for a head of lettuce to get rid of all the illegals....
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 | 79 Comments | More Updated 8/10/09 The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
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, 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."
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.
"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.
The term describes an American. Are we anchored to this country? Are you anchored to this country? Do you, as an ethical, "Christian Nation" citizen approve of the term, "Anchor Baby"?
Stop
Think
Why do you feel the way you feel about using the term "Anchor Baby" in such a cavalier way? How do you justify attaching such a stigma to an innocent infant?
Illegal alien parents are responsible for the term anchor baby. Had they not shamefully exploited their U.S.-born children, I doubt the term would exist. Why not ask them “as Christians” why they have chosen to violate our laws, and use their children to “anchor” themselves to our wallets?
No.
In order to receive welfare you must be a USA national.
If a poor woman from Poland comes here pregnant and her baby is born in US soil that child is a USA national by birthright citizenship. She can't stay in the USA and must go back to Poland with her child. If she stays, she can't get welfare.
Are you kidding? They can’t stay in the US? They can’t get welfare? Funny, we have an estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal foreign nationals currently living in this country. News Flash: Their mothers are also here, and they are collecting billions in welfare. In fact, the mothers remain here and continue to give birth.
You must be referring to birth tourism. Yes, they generally fly here, give birth to a U.S. citizen, and then take their pot of gold back to their home countries and remain there until they exploit the U.S. in the future. Their U.S.-born children are like interest-bearing bank accounts.
Idiot - I'm sure her Aussie parents needed to suck off the system (not) for the whole 3 years they were here too.
Why don't you try conducting an adult discussion?
You know, for the record, my Australian daughter has 2 little Americans (and another on the way). Do I consider them "anchor babies"? No. Why, you say? 2 VERY important distinctions - a. she's a LEGAL immigrant and doesn't need a baby to "anchor" her here b. She's NOT on welfare nor are her children or their father - she and their father WORK to support their family (and before you say so do the illegals - SOME do, at jobs they are not LEGALLY entitled to have with stolen or forged documents).
You starting to see the light yet?
So, as an Aussie why do I care so much about what this country is doing to itself? Because THIS is where my grandchildren will grow up, and I'd prefer it NOT to be a dungheap like so many parts of this country are becoming.
Are you kidding? They can’t stay in the US? They can’t get welfare? Funny, we have an estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal foreign nationals currently living in this country. News Flash: Their mothers are also here, and they are collecting billions in welfare. In fact, the mothers remain here and continue to give birth.
You must be referring to birth tourism. Yes, they generally fly here, give birth to a U.S. citizen, and then take their pot of gold back to their home countries and remain there until they exploit the U.S. in the future. Their U.S.-born children are like interest-bearing bank accounts.
As you know, I disagree with birthright citizenship.
However, in this situation, I don't see how it is a "pot of gold" if they return home. The only benefit it gives to the child is the right to return to the USA. In return, that child is liable to US tax for the rest of its life, even if it never comes back to the US, as well as being liable for selective service.
As you know, I disagree with birthright citizenship.
However, in this situation, I don't see how it is a "pot of gold" if they return home. The only benefit it gives to the child is the right to return to the USA. In return, that child is liable to US tax for the rest of its life, even if it never comes back to the US, as well as being liable for selective service.
Then, what do you believe motivates them to fly thousands of miles for the express purpose of giving birth to a U.S. citizen? The child could return to the U.S. on a visa. Do you condone birth tourism?
As you know, I disagree with birthright citizenship.
However, in this situation, I don't see how it is a "pot of gold" if they return home. The only benefit it gives to the child is the right to return to the USA. In return, that child is liable to US tax for the rest of its life, even if it never comes back to the US, as well as being liable for selective service.
To me tourism birthright is just making a US citizenship into a crackerjack prize, and they should have absolutely no right to expect citizenship for a baby when they are only a visitor and thus not subject to US jurisdiction, especially when having the baby on US soil is their SOLE reason for making the trip.
When that baby is 21 it can return to the US and then proceed to sponsor it's family, is that not a "pot of gold"? It seems they're willing to spend thousands to gain that little crackerjack prize that means nothing for their babe, you tell me why?
Then, what do you believe motivates them to fly thousands of miles for the express purpose of giving birth to a U.S. citizen? The child could return to the U.S. on a visa. Do you condone birth tourism?
Absolutely not. I could see why they might do it for quality of medical care and I could see why they might think US citizenship is a long-term advantage for the child but I don't see the "pot of gold" argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
