Article

2010-12-26 Home Front: Politix

'Anchor Baby' to Face Scrutiny in Congress

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-12-26 10:27|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 11:10|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 12:56|| Front Page Top

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|| 2010-12-26 13:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 13:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 14:15|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 15:25|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 16:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Revocation will also deter Klingon colonization.

Posted by borgboy 2010-12-26 16:59|| 2010-12-26 16:59|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 17:32|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 19:38|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-12-26 23:43|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:31 gorb
23:25 gorb
23:22 gorb
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:05 JosephMendiola
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:26 Shieldwolf
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:23 P2kontheroad
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:16 P2kontheroad
22:08 Shieldwolf
21:35 JosephMendiola
21:19 Old Patriot
21:09 JosephMendiola
21:00 JosephMendiola
20:58 JosephMendiola
20:54 JosephMendiola
20:48 abu do you love