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.
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
Being for the 14th amendment does not mean you have to support anchor babies. The whole anchor baby thing is a grotesque misinterpretation of the amendment.
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
uhm...thread fail
1. the constitution is a living (ammendable) document
2. the ammendment can also be ammended (ie changed, revised, 'gutted' revoked)
The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
so if a child born of foreign officials are not, then why would those born of illegals be
BTW...Article I, Section 8 clause of the Constitution says “the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” In other words, Congress – not the courts, ICE, the president – has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.
We don’t have to amend the Constitution, to fix this
Being for the 14th amendment does not mean you have to support anchor babies. The whole anchor baby thing is a grotesque misinterpretation of the amendment.
Exactly. And I've explained why and posted the legal history of the 14th Amendment and U.S. nationality law multiple times.
Are you all tired of seeing it? Or should I post it again?
The 14th amendment never did give birthright citizenship to babies born here to illegals.
The amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause was introduced by Senator Howard, who said that jurisdiction would NOT apply to the babies of foreigners, aliens and diplomats.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, passed just after the Civil War, was to give citizenship to former slaves.
Illegal immigrant activists and their many lawyer friends would have you believe that "subject to the jurisdiction of" merely means being in this country and subject to its laws. But if you're born in this country, that is already the case, so there is no need to add the clause unless it means something else.
Senator Howard spelled out the meaning: Babies born here to non-U.S. citizens who are citizens of other countries (foreigners, aliens, diplomats) are not subject to our jurisdiction, but to the jurisdiction of those other countries to which they owe their loyalty as citizens.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the absolute and unfettered right to establish the rules for citizenship.
Democrat Senator Harry Reid sponsored a bill in 1993 to make it clear that anchor babies were not automatic citizens.
He would not have done that if the 14th Amendment forbade it.
Of course, Harry changed his mind when he realized the Democrats would get more Latino votes if they went easy on the illegals.
I was going to bring up the "subject to jurisdiction" point as well, but your post is far better than anything I could write on the topic.
Way past time for congress to step up and pass appropriate legislation ending the anchor baby loophole.
1. the constitution is a living (ammendable) document
2. the ammendment can also be ammended (ie changed, revised, 'gutted' revoked)
The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
so if a child born of foreign officials are not, then why would those born of illegals be
BTW...Article I, Section 8 clause of the Constitution says “the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” In other words, Congress – not the courts, ICE, the president – has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.
We don’t have to amend the Constitution, to fix this
You don't read well?
"the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization"
Citizens are not "naturalized". The Congress can determine how an alien becomes a citizen.. But naturalization rules do not apply to citizens.
Before the fourteenth it was well accepted that children born of aliens were US citizens. See Lynch and similar. The Ark decision makes it clear after the fourteenth that the same is still true.
"the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization"
Citizens are not "naturalized". The Congress can determine how an alien becomes a citizen.. But naturalization rules do not apply to citizens.
Before the fourteenth it was well accepted that children born of aliens were US citizens. See Lynch and similar. The Ark decision makes it clear after the fourteenth that the same is still true.
With one glaring exception stated nicely in 1857 by a Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B, Taney of Maryland. " The colored race has no rights a white man is bound to respect". Mr Taney didn't think persons of color were fully part of mankind. The Civil War, the 14th Amendment as well as the 15th was made necessary by this unfortunately all to common bit of legal thinking. We may need some more amending to get through to some that this (Taney's legal thinking) doesn't apply to LGBTs, Women ,Hispanics, Muslims and Asians.
The law is apart from logic and many examples of departure are prominent.
When a law is absued, not just not intended for why it was written, it is our obligation to change it. Otherwise we have created a legal system which will destroy us.It would be stupid not to close loopholes. Think of anchor babies as tax loopholes.
Anchor babies desperately needs revision and now!
As if our law makers were so stupid as to write a law which empowered all the women on the face of the earth, not the American people, with the power to confer US citizenship on their children if, by hook or by crook, they could manage to enter the USA illegally and give birth, before immigration authorities could catch and deport them.
"the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization"
Citizens are not "naturalized". The Congress can determine how an alien becomes a citizen.. But naturalization rules do not apply to citizens.
Before the fourteenth it was well accepted that children born of aliens were US citizens. See Lynch and similar. The Ark decision makes it clear after the fourteenth that the same is still true.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed two years before the 14th Amendment.
Part of the text from the Civil Rights Act of 1866:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,*That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, ...
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
Logic says if something is being exploited by foreigners at taxpayer's expense you fix it.
If you don't find a problem that foreigners are breaking our laws to enter our country illegally (criminal act) to have their babies so they would get social services for life at taxpayer's expense then you are the problem.
All Congress has to do is fix that loophole that is being exploited by foreigners who are ILLEGALLY in our country, that's just common sense.....but liberals will block it, their interests is political votes to stay in power not what is the best interest of the country.
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.
