You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
'Anchor Baby' to Face Scrutiny in Congress
2010-12-26
WASHINGTON -- The end of the year means a turnover of House control from Democratic to Republican and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.

In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship.
A turn, mind you, most americans agree with.
Sure, but there's that Constitution thingy to reckon with on the subject. Congress would have to pass a law stating that anyone illegally in this country is not covered by the Constitution, to which the courts would likely object.
The issue is in the 'citizenship clause' of the 14th 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.

While a child of illegal immigrants is born in the U.S., it isn't completely clear that said child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. For example, a child born here to a foreign diplomat clearly is not subject to our jurisdiction and so is not granted citizenship. The people who argue the point say that the child of illegals is subject to (say) Mexican jurisdiction, and so should not be granted U.S. citizenship.
Such a hardened approach -- and the rhetoric certain to accompany it -- should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012.
I don't know - I think a number of LEGAL Latinos will understand it. The republicans have to remind them that their identity is being hijacked (with the media's help) by the illegals.
But, how many of the current Latino citizenry arrived illegally, and were later regularized? Would 20% be an over-optimistic estimate?
Certainly a fair number.
Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to force employers to use a still-developing web system, dubbed E-Verify, to check that all of their employees are in the U.S. legally.
Good
No Constitutional issues there, I'd think.
There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and attempts to reduce the numbers of legal immigrants.
Good.
Time to do away with 'sanctuary cities'.
Democrats ended the year failing for a second time to win passage of the Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a chance at legal status.
Those illegal aliens (not immigrants!) already have a chance at legal status - its called the Immigration Process.
House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S.
Good! Now if we can only get border enforcement....
Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against harsh
'harsh' -- even Fox is editorializing like this?
immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with illegal alien Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.
President Barack Obama could be a wild card.
Bullshit! He'll back anything which pumps up the Democratic voting rolls. That is why he is suing a state to prevent any immigration enforcement.
Posted by:CrazyFool

#11  NOT-US-NAVY-ANCHORS

versies

* CHINA DAILY FORUM > [Aztlan.net] THE "MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR" HAS NOT ENDED. No self-respecting Mexican on either side of the Rio Grande deems said war as over nor that the SW USA was NOT stolen from Mahico???

* SAME > US$2.0TRIYUHN DEBT CRISIS THREATENS TO BRING DOWN 100 US CITIES.

ARTIC > LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOJMICS PERT = US CITIES ARE ON THEIR OWN, as the FED = WASHINGTON, DC WILL NO LONGER BE THERE TO KEEP PERENNIALLY BAILING THEM OUT.

* TOPIX > [US GOP Senator Tom] COBURN: UN-ADDRESSED DEBT, SPENDING WILL BRING ABOUT "APOCALYPTIC PAIN" TO US.

Coburn argues

* 15-18% "NORMAL" US UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.
* US MIDDLE CLASS EFECTIVELY DESTROYED.
* US POOR SERIOUSLY, PROTRACTIVELY AFFECTED BY INFLATION.

Will occur in the US unless the Fed can get control of its Debt + Spending.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2010-12-26 23:43  

#10  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

That is the part upon which the means of 'interpretation' can be applied. If one has to 'technically' be in the possession of a passport, that implies which sovereign entity has 'normal' jurisdiction over the person. It is an agreement between sovereign entities that permits by papers the transit of its citizens through borders. While anyone is normally subject to the immediate laws of the land they are in, they are still subject to laws of their home country even though outside of it and are accountable for any and all transgressions of those laws. Commit an act of treason or sedition outside the normal borders and [exempting the bungling application of American authorities] and you'll quickly see who claims jurisdiction. This is why a child born of, say, a French couple in the US would file papers with their embassy to move junior quickly into French jurisdiction. The same affair occurred literally thousands of times for our military service members stationed overseas who had to file papers with the American embassies when births happened at bases across the globe.
Posted by: P2kontheroad   2010-12-26 19:38  

#9  "The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.
"

The above from Wikipedia. The utility of that amendment has how expired and it is time to strike it from the Constitution. It is being used for purposes completely unintended by the people who wrote it.

I am quite positive they didn't mean for it to allow pregnant women to flock to the US to have babies so they can claim citizenship. As all the people this law was meant to deal with are now dead and gone, so should this amendment be dead and gone.
Posted by: crosspatch   2010-12-26 17:32  

#8  Revocation will also deter Klingon colonization.
Posted by: borgboy   2010-12-26 16:59  

#7  Personally I think it should apply only if both parents are citizens or legal residents.

Children of parents who are here in a visitors visa shouldn't get automatic citizenship - and neither should illegal aliens.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-12-26 16:12  

#6  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.

If they are born to a French couple, do they have to fill out a mountain of paperwork to take the child home? Does the French couple need to "adopt" the child?

If France were to have some kind of beef concerning a child born to French citizens in the states, would they be told to FOAD?

If France had some kind of beef about any other child born to full American citizens in the US, would that concern hold the same weight as it would to the child born to French citizens?

Suppose that child goes back to France with its parents. Do we tax that child for the rest of its life on its global earnings as the US does to me?

I'm 99% certain that the idea that "anybody born on US soil is a US citizen" is a recent liberal interpretation, or at least an interpretation that kept cases out of courts years ago rather than dealing with a bunch of chatter in the legal system.

This idea has to go.
Posted by: gorb   2010-12-26 15:25  

#5  Let's get rid of the 'Anchor' aspect of this thing. Grant the child of illegals born here a 'Right of Return', then kick illegal Mom & Pop out of our country sending their kids with them. When said kids are old enough to contribute to the society (get a job, pay taxes, etc.) they can elect to return to the United States and claim their birthright.
Posted by: bigfingo   2010-12-26 14:15  

#4  Methinks a big effort to overturn the anchor-baby feature of federal law is little more than a tapdance through a minefield. I'm guessing there's been enough case law since the 1860's to establish a precedent that any person born on US soil is a US citizen, so any legal argument that the 14th Amendment doesn't confirm birthright citizenship would probably not prevail in court.

Any attempt to change the text of the 14th via another amendment would run headlong into the DNC/ACLU/media/racial-grievance industry axis.
The GOP has nothing to gain traveling that road; all they'd accomplish is giving the aforementioned rogues' gallery of Quislingcrat allies a golden opportunity to pound, pound, pound the message over a multi-year period that Republicans and any other opponents of open borders are "evil, heartless fascists." Better to somehow work out a means of forcing Ogabe's hand on workplace immigration enforcement, or to put such legislation through after he's hopefully run out of office in 2012.

If illegals can't find or keep jobs because of workplace enforcement you'll not only reduce the supply from south of the Rio Grande, but you'll also enjoy the benefits of "self deportation." both of which will in time greatly diminish the anchor-baby issue's impact.
Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)   2010-12-26 13:42  

#3  

The issue is in the 'citizenship clause' of the 14th 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.


As this was to ensure that slaves and the children of slaves would be ensured citizenship and as there are no longer any living slaves who are having children, this portion of the 14th amendment should be stricken.
Posted by: crosspatch   2010-12-26 13:21  

#2  Importantly, Justice Thomas wrote a very impressive defense of a *different* part of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment. The first part of the 1st section, in bold below, is the problematic 'citizenship clause'.

Section 1. 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.

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.

This second part of the first section, italicized, is essential to the federal government being able to *prevent* abusive behavior to the people by the individual States.

As far as Thomas is concerned, this part, not the first part, is very near and dear to his heart, and to all black Americans.

But it goes beyond that right now, in a critical way, because it also highlights the need for its flip side, some way for the individual States to protect the public from an abusive and arrogant federal government.

So the bottom line is that we cannot just throw out the first section of the 14th Amendment. In fact, if the opportunity presents itself, a new amendment should *enlarge* on the idea of the 14th Amendment, to protect the people from the federal government.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-12-26 12:56  

#1  Obama would most likely veto any Congressional legislation dealing with illegals. He would be afraid of losing potential Latino votes. There is an assumption by both parties that the Latino population is homogeneous--I'm not so sure. A POTUS veto can be overridden if 2/3 of both houses of Congress pass the legislation. However, I don't see that happening at this time.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-12-26 11:10  

00:00