More states may target birthright citizenship..aka..Anchor babies

[dainthomas]

I saw an article a while back that some people who plan to give birth plan a visit as a tourist while they are preagnant, just so they can get citizenship for their baby.

The story I heard was that this is really big with wealthy Chinese couples. They fly out, have the baby, then fly back to China. The thought is that when their child turns 18, they'll have better educational and career opportunities as an American citizen (or at least it would be an option). It has nothing to with the parents wanting to move here.

 

[Fern]

Seems like pretty clear language to me no matter what side of issue you are on. Like Second Amendment

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...

Get over it. Change the Constitution if you don't like it.


PS: no ex post facto laws are allowed so all born here until you change it are still citizens.

[Edit: Got beat to it by others] Don't overlook the "and" part, the second qualification necessary to become a US citizen by birth. There are at least four categores of persons born here who are not automatically citizens because they do not qualify under the (second) requirement that they be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

As far as I can tell, it has not yet been litigated at the SCOTUS level if illegal immigrants meet the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.

My guess is that these proposed state laws are designed to force that issue to be litigated at the SCOTUS level.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

[Edit: Got beat to it by others] Don't overlook the "and" part, the second qualification necessary to become a US citizen by birth. There are at least four categores of persons born here who are not automatically citizens because they do not qualify under the (second) requirement that they be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

As far as I can tell, it has not yet been litigated at the SCOTUS level if illegal immigrants meet the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.

My guess is that these proposed state laws are designed to force that issue to be litigated at the SCOTUS level.

Fern

There is actually a 100 year old case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that answers this question. It's a pretty interesting case, but the upshot of the decision established very specific exceptions to the second requirement you mention...none of which apply to illegal immigrants. The intent of that requirement, according to the decision, is to exclude children who's parents are in this country to conduct official business of their country, like diplomats, soldiers, etc...not illegal immigrants.

Now that's a pretty old decision, so it's possible the current court might overturn it, but I don't think so. The phrase seems fairly straightforward, and an argument based around the idea that illegal immigrants aren't subject to our jurisdiction would seem to invite a host of other problems.

 

[bfdd]

I would support a new Constitutional Amendment that specifically targeted the anchor baby issue, as there's no way in hell I want my tax dollars to support education, health care, or any other government services for illegals and their children.

Same, I don't see where a state thinks they can succeed on this. They can refuse state citizenship, but federal? lol

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

So much fail. I have met plenty of citizens whose parents were in the country illegally, and they are 110% american. Some can't even speak Spanish, and most speak it horribly. Screw you sir. They are American, like it or not.

Of course, there are plenty of people that are how you describe, but your assertion that they are all like this and that they will NEVER integrate into society is absurdly wrong.

Fine, I overgeneralized. Some illegals (and they are the minority) come here to integrate and raise their kids to be successful. But most of them just want a mini-Mexico without the drug violence.

And show me a mexican illegal anchor-baby who barely speaks Spanish. Come on, really?

 

[Fern]

There is actually a 100 year old case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that answers this question. It's a pretty interesting case, but the upshot of the decision established very specific exceptions to the second requirement you mention...none of which apply to illegal immigrants. The intent of that requirement, according to the decision, is to exclude children who's parents are in this country to conduct official business of their country, like diplomats, soldiers, etc...not illegal immigrants.

Now that's a pretty old decision, so it's possible the current court might overturn it, but I don't think so. The phrase seems fairly straightforward, and an argument based around the idea that illegal immigrants aren't subject to our jurisdiction would seem to invite a host of other problems.

I read the case summary. It looked to me like Wong's parents were legal aliens. I.e., may potentially be seen as not 'on point'.

Yeah, I saw the 4 categories of "not subject to", but unless that court specifically considered illegal immigrants and decided they didn't violate the 'subject to" clause there's nothing to say a current court couldn't take up the issue of illegals. In that case finding a 5th category wouldn't be overturning any precedent, it would be creating it.

As regards the issue of illegals not being subject to our jurisdiction, I'm pretty sure that's already the case at some lower (court) levels. I think an earlier post in this thread already quoted a case on that.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

I read the case summary. It looked to me like Wong's parents were legal aliens. I.e., may potentially be seen as not 'on point'.

Yeah, I saw the 4 categories of "not subject to", but unless that court specifically considered illegal immigrants and decided they didn't violate the 'subject to" clause there's nothing to say a current court couldn't take up the issue of illegals. In that case finding a 5th category wouldn't be overturning any precedent, it would be creating it.

True, the case wouldn't be EXACTLY the same...but the significant part is how the decision is written, not the exact status of the original parties in the case. The majority opinion was that since he was born here, and didn't fit the 4 exceptions to "subject to", he was a citizen...which would also apply to the children of illegal immigrants.

I agree that the court could find a new exception to the "jurisdiction" clause, I was just pointing out that there is indeed precedent to support illegal immigrants NOT being specifically excluded.

As regards the issue of illegals not being subject to our jurisdiction, I'm pretty sure that's already the case at some lower (court) levels. I think an earlier post in this thread already quoted a case on that.

Fern

The only thing I could find, although I could have missed something, seems to be a number of statements made by non-judicial branch officials regarding jurisdiction (something about "full jurisdiction"), not supported by judicial rulings (at any level).

As I said, I'm a bit skeptical because of the exceptions already existing for the jurisdiction clause. Excluding people who are acting in an official capacity for a foreign power makes sense, since they are typically also granted many other exceptions under the law. However, I feel like there are a lot of cases establishing the expectation that illegal immigrants ARE subject to US law, which makes exempting them from our jurisdiction problematic.

 

[Zebo]

[Edit: Got beat to it by others] Don't overlook the "and" part, the second qualification necessary to become a US citizen by birth. There are at least four categores of persons born here who are not automatically citizens because they do not qualify under the (second) requirement that they be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

As far as I can tell, it has not yet been litigated at the SCOTUS level if illegal immigrants meet the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.

My guess is that these proposed state laws are designed to force that issue to be litigated at the SCOTUS level.

Fern

If you're here you are subject to the jurisdiction. Well almost everyone, diplomats excluded which is why it was inserted.

As an accountant you should know this. Try with an illegal client and tell IRS "he's not subject to your jurisdiction"

 

[werepossum]

I would support a new Constitutional Amendment that specifically targeted the anchor baby issue, as there's no way in hell I want my tax dollars to support education, health care, or any other government services for illegals and their children.

So would I. However unless and until that hypothetical Amendment is ratified, it seems pretty clear that anchor babies are in fact US citizens. Although illegal aliens are arguably not within the jurisdiction of the USA, their children clearly are, unlike children of, say, foreign diplomats. A child born within the USA of illegal alien parents has none of the legal immunity enjoyed by children of foreign diplomats; ergo they must be citizens. And thus unless and until that hypothetical Amendment is ratified, a state can have little to say about anchor babies and their rights.

 

[Jhhnn]

quantify yours. you havent proved shit. you just barf out garbage your heros on MSNBC and NPR spoon feed you.

That's pretty lame denial. You claim that anchor babies are a big problem, yet have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they even exist except in the imaginations of the usual ravers.

Statistical evidence backing your claims must exist, because otherwise you wouldn't be making them, right?

I suspect that you and the others would, and are, because you've offered nothing- zero, zip, zilch, nada, nyet backing any of your claims. It's apparently just another empty right wing outrage touch point, signifying nothing but gullibility and faith in what you believe.

It's your claim- not mine. If you can't back it up, it's bullshit.

 

[nick1985]

That's pretty lame denial. You claim that anchor babies are a big problem, yet have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they even exist except in the imaginations of the usual ravers.

You dont think anchor babies even exist? Do you not believe in oceans or trees either?

 

[Jhhnn]

You dont think anchor babies even exist? Do you not believe in oceans or trees either?

Lame dodging will get you nowhere. Annually, how many illegal aliens are granted legal status in this country because of their citizen child? How many are there, in total?

Really easy questions for people who seem to know so much about it all, who seem to think it's some huge problem.

Educate me. Give me the facts. Back up your assertions.

 

[Steeplerot]

Do you not believe in oceans or trees either?

If they were ocean trees from movies or rw cult echo chamber then these are entertainment fiction. Do you believe in pro wrestling actors personas also? Same difference.

Entertainment and yellow journalism provided by mainstream media for outrage junkies chock full of bullshit rumors, such as the fake anchor baby issue here.

 

[Zebo]

None it's a false issue. All we need to do is enforce laws in place on employers and illegals here but the powers that be don't want to so lets blame babies.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Fine, I overgeneralized. Some illegals (and they are the minority) come here to integrate and raise their kids to be successful. But most of them just want a mini-Mexico without the drug violence.

And show me a mexican illegal anchor-baby who barely speaks Spanish. Come on, really?

Good that you recognized that.

And yes, really. There plenty. Many (unfortunately) even despise their parents' culture for some reason and refuse to be "Mexican." I don't blame them for not wanting to be Mexican, but I don't understand the apparent hatred.

There are also those who are citizens and don't even live in this country. Or speak English. Or live in the country and speak poor English. Seen it all.

What I see mostly is the first, possibly due to where I encounter such people (in schools), where fake Americans who can't speak English are not likely to be.

 

[nick1985]

the fake anchor baby issue here.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Not really clear language. You're ignoring the part of the quote between the commas. The "and" means that both have to be true. The basis for the new laws would be this second part, that the children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US since the parents are not here legally.

What kind of bizarro logic is that?

Lets say being here illegally makes you not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Okay. Now what does this have to do with the child? The parents are here illegally, not the child. Therefore, the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Not the child. If illegal=not under jurisdiction, then you would need to show that the child is here illegally in order to show that its not under U.S. jurisdiction. But if the child is born in the U.S., the child is not here illegally, and therefore under U.S. jurisdiction.

But that is assuming illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Or can we not try and and punish illegals under U.S. law because they are outside of our jurisdiction? They are free to commit any crime they want, and be immune to our laws?

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Oh, one more thing:

Anchor babies are a myth.

Prove me wrong. Go.

Really, lets get this out of the way. It would be better for all of us to clear this up. And lets not forget the results.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not saying anchor babies are a myth. They may well exist. It's up to those making all these claims to show how many there are if those folks are to reasonably assert that a problem exists.

Crickets, so far...

 

[Zebo]

He's not saying it's a myth. He's saying it's myth that having babies born in USA gives you immigration rights or and other rights.

You can come with your babies from abroad and get same govt assistance as if they are born here. Welfare, schooling, hospital treatment whatever. Where baby is born has ZERO effect on what they really want to decry.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's not saying it's a myth. He's saying it's myth that having babies born in USA gives you immigration rights or and other rights.

You can come with your babies from abroad and get same govt assistance as if they are born here. Welfare, schooling, hospital treatment whatever. Where baby is born has ZERO effect on what they really want to decry.

And you and your kids can easily be deported by ICE if they want. Your citizen children can stay behind if you choose to leave them. Whatever benefits granted illegals are granted by states, beyond emergency room care. Yeh, their kids go to school. I'm not sure about welfare, at all. You'd need citations there, as well, to make an honest argument.

 

[Infohawk]

Gotta' change the Constitution and that will not happen. Anyway it's too late. Latinos/Chicanos have reached a critical mass. Is there any sign their birth rates are going to come down? I haven't seen any. And with multiculturalism being tolerated there's nothing to stop this country from being just like the garbage south american ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta' change the Constitution and that will not happen. Anyway it's too late. Latinos/Chicanos have reached a critical mass. Is there any sign their birth rates are going to come down? I haven't seen any. And with multiculturalism being tolerated there's nothing to stop this country from being just like the garbage south american ones.

Your sheets are showing.

 

[Infohawk]

Your sheets are showing.

Your retardation is showing. This doesn't have anything to do with race.

 

[Steeplerot]

Is there any sign their birth rates are going to come down? I haven't seen any.

Newcomers always have higher birthrates until they "settle in". Early last century people said same thing about that "troublesome infestation" of all these Catholic Irish "breeders" all over the ghettos making trouble and not using birth control.

Now an Irishman is known as first on the moon and one of our best Presidents.

Same type folks bitching about the same lame xenophobia regardless of how this whole country of immigrants disproves the slander over and over, century after century, wave after wave of broke people looking to work and a new life easily shit upon by the spoiled former immigrants decendents who were lucky enough to have fallen out of a vagina on a arbitrary piece of land before they did. It gets old and is unamerican.