There is no such thing as anchor babies

General General Discussion
1

Perhaps, if this is right. This is something that I read and thought some here might enjoy it

"Apparently, over 12,000 babies are born from illegal aliens just in Dallas Texas every year. As soon as these women leave the hospital, the majority goes to a welfare office and receive food stamps and other benefits.

One illegal + one illegal = 2 illegals

Such is the law of mathematics, law of reason and logic.

Where is it written that if an illegal alien gives birth in the US, the child is automatically a US citizen?

Arguments (and/or propaganda) has it that it originates with the 14th Amendment to wit:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

However, the 14th really states, …when the blank spaces are read in between the comas, …“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”…

Now an Illegal alien is not “a subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; he is not a member of the body politic; he is not part of the social contract; he is not a taxpayer; and he is not entitled to any benefits or privileges whatsoever.

Furthermore, when I did research on the 14th, to my knowledge, there were no case laws nor any written laws that proclaim that an illegal alien giving birth in the US that the said child is automatically a US citizen… And it is also well recognized that children born from ambassadors residing temporarily in the US are not citizens of the United States.

Actually, under the common law, it is stipulated quite the contrary as the status of a child follows the status of the mother… (Partus Sequitur Ventrum.)

Even under the Laws of Slavery, a child born of a slave woman was recognized as a slave even if the father was a free person. And if a child was born of a free woman and the father was a slave, the child was regarded in law as a free person… these ancient tenets and Maxims were also recognized under the laws of Bastardy.

In summary, US citizenship can be lawfully acquired through birth by US Citizens, residing here or abroad, by naturalization, by marriage, and by conquest.

Nothing is written that US Citizenship can be acquired through fraudulent means, violation of law, or by any illegal acts.

It would defy reason and common sense, and would contradict maxims of law and judicial tenets.

And not so long ago, in order to be naturalized, a person had to renounce all allegiance to any foreign countries, kings, princes, or prelates."

2

Yeap, at Parkland Hospital it’s so bad that Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price sent a bill to the Mexican consulate here in Dallas for the tab. Of course the noble Mexican government laughed at it. According to international law when a foreign national is in another country and they require hospital services their home nation is supposed to reimburse the hospital for the first 72 hours of care.

It’s so bad in Dallas that Parkland is know as the “Hispanic Healthcare Hospital”. :mad:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/061206dnmetmoms.d9b9669.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/091507dnbushispanichealth.29186bf.html

The original law concerning “anchor babies” was meant for babies of African slaves and Native Americans being born here in the US.

Come to think of it now that we are on the subject, I wonder POTUS ever got his citizenship since is actually from Kenya???

3

:rolleyes:Please don’t, that is not the point of the thread. The point is that according to the constitution, just because someone is born here does not make them a citizen. They are only a citizen if they are born to citizen parents, or at least parent.

4

I agree wholeheartedly with the article. I also think it’s about time we review ALL Amendments after the Tenth Amendment for Constitutionality… IMHO it’s the only way to arrest the onslaught against us.

5

Agreed. Just off the top of my head, the 16th & 17th need to go first

6

Nationality by birth, or jus soli, is a well settle legal principal that is nothing new. Neither is jus sanguinis, the little tidbit that a bunch a people can’t wrap their minds around when it comes to the CINC.

7

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

8

Interesting read. Out of curiosity, would the fact that the parents were here legally and in a kind of permanent resident status have anything to do with it? I am not being smart, I mean it in a genuine question. I am by no means a law expert.[QUOTE=] That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence[/QUOTE]

9

So would the 14th as we already had equal protection under the law. We also need to review the Original 13th Amendment as well… makes a very interesting study, btw.

10

Once again, agreed. Those were just off the top

11

“Interesting read. Out of curiosity, would the fact that the parents were here legally and in a kind of permanent resident status have anything to do with it? I am not being smart, I mean it in a genuine question. I am by no means a law expert.”

US v. Ark is one of the longest SCOTUS rulings ever written, the detail in the ruling leaves no doubt about the SCOTUS opinion on the matter. Whether the parents are legally or illegally present is immaterial to the nationality of a child born in the United States. Like I said, this is long settled law, time to move on.

Here is the entire ruling for those that might actually read it.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

12

A little arrogant of a comment. Thank you for the link though, I will read it.

13

No, the “actually read it” comment was intended for those that would post “the 14th says this or that” long after when in fact all of their arguments are defeated in U.S. v. Ark, which is not a recent liberal ruling but was in fact authored by a conservative bench back in 1898. It is a very detailed ruling that addresses common law, Federal Code of the time, history, and the 14th Amendment. There is no wiggle room.

14

Some more “light reading” for you A-Man as I see you are genuinely intrigued by this.

PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=202

15

Very interesting thoughts, OP.

kmrtnsn; I’ll read those links when my head can actually process info correctly, those look like very informative reads.

I consider myself incredibly lucky being born here in the States (and holding dual citizenship). Made a lot of things so much easier, and allowed me to do things I wouldn’t have gotten a chance to do.

16

I’m with you guys 100%. I lament the fact that 99% of the American population show such a high level of apathy towards such topics. These topics shape the very existence of the Unites States of America.

17

Maybe I am missing something?

Page 169 U. S. 732

I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.

In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.

18

How can you question something in the Constitution for constitutionality?

An amendment makes whatever is in the amendment constitutional just by virtue of being part of it.

19

I believe someone questioned the 18th amendment.

20

By that I mean is the Amendent LAWFUL with respect to The Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rightd as opposed to be LEGAL by sheer fact that it’s passed. It’s similar to CASE LAW in which I can rule anything capriciously. If it stands then it’s considered “LAW”. CASE LAW is very dangerous. Just because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED Law one way does not make it LAWFUL.

Those “dead white males” were pretty freakin’ bright and if we’d but read their letters and the Debates (Fed and Anti-Fed Papers) we’d not require the questionable “Men (and women) in Black” to “interpret” what we can fully comprehend.

If you have the time research how the Southern States were coerced back into the Union and the how the Amendments were gotten rid of (Original 13th) and added 14th, etc., etc.