Anchor babies: a second look
|
|
|||||
|
30 votes
|
|
31% | |||
|
53 votes
|
|
55% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
14% | |||
to bestow American citizenship on their offspring whom they birthed
here. Congress proposed the Amendment after the Civil War to protect the
children of slaves and to make them citizens. It reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
[emphasis added], are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like it or not, the clear reading of the Amendment seems to clearly allow anchor babies – or does it? The phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof
is key – especially in the context of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
which preceded it by two years. Of course you can argue that anyone
living here is subject to our jurisdiction – and that would be a valid
argument. But it would not be a winning argument. There may be a little bit more to the argument against anchor babies than appears on the surface.
Anchor babies in early history
To understand some of the finer nuances of this Amendment, we need to
go back to the precursor of the 14 Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of
1866:
An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.
It reads:
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
[emphasis added], 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, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in
every State and Territory in the United States…
The point is that to qualify for citizenship on the basis of being
born here, you cannot be under the jurisdiction of or subject to any
foreign power.
For instance, the 30th article in the Mexican Constitution
attributes Mexican nationality to a person who was born abroad if one
or both parents were Mexican nationals or naturalized. There are ways to
alter this by positive act, and change allegiance. But simply being
born in another country is not one of them. The Mexican Constitution
goes further: such a person of Mexican nationality born abroad cannot
claim protection from a foreign country. The latter is meant to describe
the person’s relationship to the State. That State considers them
Mexicans and subject to Mexican law. This subjection to Mexican law
clearly negates the conditions emphasized in the Civil Rights Act of
1866.
So what say you? Does the US Constitution really grant citizenship to any baby born in this country, in whatever circumstance?
Or does it instead require that a person born in this country must be properly subject to its jurisdiction, and to no other?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/19...
Top Opinion
-
cheshirewayne 2012/06/20 02:00:35The 14th Amendment requires that a person born in-country also be subject to ...
+11the 14th Amendment was intended to give former slaves citizenship. But with some many things, our forefathers must be rolling in their graves of the misuse of their words.
Typical Progressive psychobabble masquerading as the philosophy of law.
the 14th does grant citizenship to anyone born in the usa and its territories.
But let's look at it from a practical point of view.
"According to the Constitution of Mexico, anyone born within the borders of the Mexican territory automatically achieves citizenship. It doesn't matter if the person is of Mexican descent or some other nation, citizenship is bestowed upon the individual because of the place of birth. This means that many people with Mexican citizenship are dual citizens with other countries." http://www.ehow.com/facts_479...
It is a know fact that George Romney, Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. Therefore by Mexican law he was a Mexican citizen. Since according to you anyone born of a Mexican citizen in the US is a Mexican citizen and not a US citizen that makes Mitt Romney a non-citizen because he can only be a Mexican.
Now I have a feeling that the citizenship by birth clause in the Mexican constitution is pretty common. That would seem to mean anyone who had ancestors that came to the US after 1789 could not be a US citizen if their ancestor...
But let's look at it from a practical point of view.
"According to the Constitution of Mexico, anyone born within the borders of the Mexican territory automatically achieves citizenship. It doesn't matter if the person is of Mexican descent or some other nation, citizenship is bestowed upon the individual because of the place of birth. This means that many people with Mexican citizenship are dual citizens with other countries." http://www.ehow.com/facts_479...
It is a know fact that George Romney, Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. Therefore by Mexican law he was a Mexican citizen. Since according to you anyone born of a Mexican citizen in the US is a Mexican citizen and not a US citizen that makes Mitt Romney a non-citizen because he can only be a Mexican.
Now I have a feeling that the citizenship by birth clause in the Mexican constitution is pretty common. That would seem to mean anyone who had ancestors that came to the US after 1789 could not be a US citizen if their ancestors came from a country that had such a citizenship clause in it's law as their parents would have been citizens of another country. Going back to the example of Mitt Romney his kids would be Mexican as their father is a Mexican.
Renouncing foreign citizenship and filling out naturalization papers wouldn't work unless the foreign home country allowed it.
so the parents crossed into the soverign nation constitutes *illegal entry ''
then has a child /ren in that nation ,, and in NO OTHER COUNTRY can you enter a country illegally ..then expect the nation to give sustanance & medical care ( welfare ) UNDER civil rights .
then declare the child the right of the parents to stay uninvited ,,and give sustance & medical care ( ie refugge status "though refuee status " is from a violent & waring country " ! )
so the anchor baby in a humane country ( the united states ) and thus has been the standard of the hispanic community ...
not many others come in the country w/ out permission "visas " they then stay after ,on a expired visa " then comes a worse senario for INS ..
but the original premise is being used WAY too much ,,and looking for amnesty for anchor babies under the HUMANITARY ... and civil rights angle is becomming worn out ...!
but obammie is getting desperate for his dwindling voter populace ...next will be granting amnesty for student loans / foreclosure forgivance "under exeuctive order " this has been rumored as well ...by sept ...he getting desperate ''
but senator steven King will get this exeuctive order ( injunction) revolked soon ...
The 14th Amendment, as the language you quote clearly establishes, does not grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil, the child born on US soil has to be "subject to ... [US] ... jurisdiction". However, when you go on to talk abut that, that's not exactly what you say; rather, you add the phrase "and no other". That's what's called in discussions of law here in Albany NY, home of the State legislature and highest court "a very heavy lift".
Your allusion to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 doesn't really get you anywhere. To me it is inconceivable that Justice Scalia would buy into the argument you make here; it is wholly inconsistent with what he wrote in "A Matter of Interpretation". And rightfully so. The language that you quote from the Civil Rights Act differs from the language in the 14th Amendment. And the difference in the language is precisely that which I point to in the preceding paragraph. To paraphrase Justice Scalia, language has meaning, and no amount of referencing to external material should be allowed to change the meaning of a Constitutional provision as enacted. Until and unless you show that an 'anchor baby' is not subject to US jurisdiction, you're sucking wind; showing concurrent jurisdicti...
The 14th Amendment, as the language you quote clearly establishes, does not grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil, the child born on US soil has to be "subject to ... [US] ... jurisdiction". However, when you go on to talk abut that, that's not exactly what you say; rather, you add the phrase "and no other". That's what's called in discussions of law here in Albany NY, home of the State legislature and highest court "a very heavy lift".
Your allusion to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 doesn't really get you anywhere. To me it is inconceivable that Justice Scalia would buy into the argument you make here; it is wholly inconsistent with what he wrote in "A Matter of Interpretation". And rightfully so. The language that you quote from the Civil Rights Act differs from the language in the 14th Amendment. And the difference in the language is precisely that which I point to in the preceding paragraph. To paraphrase Justice Scalia, language has meaning, and no amount of referencing to external material should be allowed to change the meaning of a Constitutional provision as enacted. Until and unless you show that an 'anchor baby' is not subject to US jurisdiction, you're sucking wind; showing concurrent jurisdiction just doesn't get you there.
As a matter of policy I am very much on your side. I find the concept of "Anchor Babies" entirely repugnant and I would readily support not just a Constitutional Amendment to limit the practice by its own terms and empowering Congress to end it totally in whatever legislative manner it sees fit, but also legislation under the current Constitution authorizing tarring and feathering any Representative, Senator, or Judicial Official who extends the practice one millimeter past what currently is Constitutionally mandated. But you aren't going to get me to change the meaning of a Constitutional provision by convincing me that fashions have changed - that's plenty good for Liberals, but most of the rest of us believe in a Rule of Law all the time, not just when it happens to agree with our politics; the Constitution contains instructions for its amendment and we should use them.
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen."
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mi...
Those who try to redefine "natural born citizen" for their own agenda are no better than those who try to redefine "torture" (e.g., waterboarding) for their own agenda.
Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty ...
&
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen."
- http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mi...
Those who try to redefine "natural born citizen" for their own agenda are no better than those who try to redefine "torture" (e.g., waterboarding) for their own agenda.
Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
- Lewis Carroll, English author & recreational mathematician (1832 - 1898)
Fortunately, the Rule of Law supersedes the Rule of Man in civilized societies.
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.
To understand the goal and function of the Fourteenth Amendment's first section one needs to understand that its entire purpose was to give legal effect to the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. The goal of both of these acts were to put an end to the criminal black codes established under former rebel States that at the time were being administered under policies of President Andrew Johnson.
Because former slaves were considered emancipated citizens of the United States by Lincoln's emancipation, Congress felt it was vital to protect their fundamental rights as United States citizens under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution wherever they traveled within the Union (especially in the South and Oregon). These fundamental rights of United States citizens (not citizens residing within their own State) were strictly defined as due process in criminal proceedings and for the equal administration of due process that included equal pains and penalties of law.
Under the original Constitution, citizens of the United States were required to be first a citizen of some State - something newly emancipated citizens could not claim. This is why it was imperative for the first section to begin with a definition of citizenship so that no State could refuse recognit...
To understand the goal and function of the Fourteenth Amendment's first section one needs to understand that its entire purpose was to give legal effect to the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. The goal of both of these acts were to put an end to the criminal black codes established under former rebel States that at the time were being administered under policies of President Andrew Johnson.
Because former slaves were considered emancipated citizens of the United States by Lincoln's emancipation, Congress felt it was vital to protect their fundamental rights as United States citizens under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution wherever they traveled within the Union (especially in the South and Oregon). These fundamental rights of United States citizens (not citizens residing within their own State) were strictly defined as due process in criminal proceedings and for the equal administration of due process that included equal pains and penalties of law.
Under the original Constitution, citizens of the United States were required to be first a citizen of some State - something newly emancipated citizens could not claim. This is why it was imperative for the first section to begin with a definition of citizenship so that no State could refuse recognition of newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens and thereby leaving them with less protection and remedies under the laws of justice than compared with a citizen.
The Congress shall have power to make laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property.
The issue of divided loyalties is so much a matter of contention that on many occasions in time of war we have had mass arrests with deportations, internments, and overt surveillance of even naturalized and native-born U.S. citizens. There's not just the history of the Nisei and Issei (Japanese-Americans) during World War II, but also the treatment of lawfully naturalized German-Americans during both of the World Wars and Italian-Americans during World War II
My own grandparents were subjected to such surveillance - much as we accord registered "sexual predators" today - during World War II despite the fact that both sets of grandparents had, between them, four sons in the military services and two working in draft-deferred weapons manufacturing jobs requiring security clearances.
"Anchor babies" can be considered legal residents of our republic, and their abilities to reside here, work, pay taxes, hold property, keep and bear arms, serve in the military forces - these cannot be lawfully impaired.
But are they citizens?
Not one friggin' little bit.
Is not this the perfect set-up? For a plebiscite to retro-cede certain territories, taken during the Mexican War (and earlier by Andrew Jackson), back to Mexico.