Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

According to a Time’s Magazine article, “Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona – and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution – to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce….He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070”.

The prospective bill is to complicate the process so much that illegal immigrants will not have an “anchor baby” in the state of Arizona. The article points out the results of a poll taken by Rasmussen which questioned on whether children born to illegal immigrants should receive U.S. citizenship “58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans”.

The major problem with this prospective bill is Amendment 14 which prohibits states from making or enforcing any law that hinders their U.S. citizenship. The 14th Amendment was a response to the emancipation of slaves. The question is; does such a law violate the 14th Amendment?

Do you all see this bill as a violation of the 14th Amendment?
Do you think that the 14th Amendment should be changed to exclude what this article refers to as “anchor babies”?

Here is where I stand on the issue:
1. I think the prospective bill for Arizona violates the 14th Amendment.
2. Yes, I do think that the 14th Amendment should be changed to not allow illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and bear their children here as a means to stay. I find it to be just another slap in the face to our nation to enter illegally and then have children here that gain automatic citizenship.

I’m sure that this will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.

Here is the link to the article: “ Arizona’s Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals”

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

The 14th Amendment does not need to be changed because it did not intend to allow illegal born immigrants immediate status. The Supreme Court will have to refer to ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=112&invol=94

The problem that will occur is that the original purpose and language was confused in Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court case:

“To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=169&invol=649

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

I agree!

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

If/when that does go to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see what happens. In my opinion, the anchor baby thing will will. As long as the child is born within U.S. borders, regardless of the time here and regardless of the legal status of the mother, I think the child will legally be an American citizen. Not saying I agree but I think that is the way it will be.

It is also my opinion that if gay marriage or even multiple marriages go to the U.S. Supreme court, if an actual decision is rendered by the court, both gay and multiple marriages will be made legal. The GLBT folks are just too strong, vocal, and visible and right now have Political Correctness on their side.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

The GLBT folks may have all of that, but what they don't have at this time is a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court. I see "gay marriage" being bounced out, at least for now - if it even gets to the Supremes.

The question on the 14th Amendment is trickier. Are the illegal alien parents of the "anchor baby" "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? The President of Mexico doesn't appear to think so, so why should we?

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

could be interesting if either of the two get to the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, if they do get that far, they will be bounced because of some technicality so the court does not have to actually act on the issue.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

If anyone commits a crime anywhere, they are prosecuted there. That American girl who was convicted of murder in Italy recently isn't an Italian citizen suddenly because of the conviction. http://www.people.com/people/article...324839,00.html

Illegals are not subject to Federal income taxes, though they may end up having their earnings taxed any how because of fraudulent Social Security numbers and such. In any event, they are at least not subject to FICA taxation and are ineligible for SS benefits.

They do have many rights guaranteed them simply as human beings. If someone were to murder an illegal they would face the same level of prosecution that the murder of a US citizen would entail; but this would not confer nor imply citizenship. It's just the just thing to do.

Frankly, most people turned a blind eye to the illegals because it was often in our best interests to do so. When their numbers increase to a point that it's no longer in our best interests to tolerate the illegality, we change our attitudes.

That strikes many illegals and their descendants as unfair, but it's really a whole lot more fair than the treatment they receive back in Mexico and certainly many magnitudes of "more fair" than the treatment an American citizen would find in Mexico if the roles were reversed.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Yeah, that's the bottom line. Unfortunately.

What I don't like as well is the political game that is played. When someone speaks out for our laws to be observed they are often painted as "racist." Yet most of the people I know who happen to have Hispanic surnames are also very much against illegal immigration.

My earlier point was that the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" clause doesn't mean just subject to the common criminal laws of the state and nation. It has a finer distinction in mind - the sort of jurisdiction that comes up when we talk about where "home" is and which community we feel we need to contribute our taxes to and to support.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Question: Can a child of a diplomat become president?
If a child is born to foriegn diplomats here in the US does that make them naturally born citizens and eligable to become president?


Answer: No
Neither of the child's parents are US Citizens. A Diplomatic Passport does not automatically confer a right to remain in the US.

Precedent is already available. Just beause a child is born in the USA does not automatically confer to them citizen status.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

From the ruling: Plyler v. Doe

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Some argue that our current president is not a U.S. citizen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uu47...eature=related

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

This thread isn't about Obama's citizenship status, tg7. Just so you know. lol!

I see you reside in San Antonio. I used to live there and worked in the legal department at USAA. I lived by Churchill High School.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

This would be my question concerning "anchor babies", Plyler v. Doe states,

"Although the congressional debate concerning § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to all within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws."

How can a baby make that distinction and be included? It's like "infant baptism". They are not making a conscientious choice. How can that be legally binding?

And here, again, Plyler v. Doe states:

"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."

How can a baby, in any way, have the ability to be subject to the laws of the State? His/her allegiance would most decidedly remain with the parent, IMO. I don't see how an "anchor baby" could comply and be included in "within its jurisdiction" afforded by the 14th Amendment.

Isn't the Equal Protection Clause only binding upon compliance with the 14th Amendment?

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

This issue was addressed in 1873...which if find to be quite interesting how the Supreme Court rviewed 'subject to jurisdiction'.

The Slaughter-House Cases

In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) — a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship — a Supreme Court majority mentioned in passing that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States"


Illegal pregnant mothers within the U.S. are "citizens or subjects" of foreign states. Thus, upon giving birth in the U.S.; hence their children are not U.S. citizens. (This is how I interpret their view, yet I'm no legal scholar).

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

The hitch came in when the court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) concluding that the children of aliens born on American soil are US citizens. It did not make any effort to distinguish between legal or illegal aliens, even while going out of its way (repeatedly) to distinguish the two classes of foreign diplomats and armies in hostile occupation. Designatio unius est exlusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum (The designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and what is expressed prevails over what is implied.)

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

My question in the US v. Wong Kim Ark ruling would be the the wording in bold. What was the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding the 14th Amendment?

The intent I am reaching for gets shot down, in court, simply by quoting the 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...."

It is argued that the we know, at the time (1868), we were not limiting immigration which means we had no illegal immigrants, therefore, the issue of any citizenship for children was nonexistent.

Therefore it would be absurd to insist that they intended to deny citizenship to a class of person that they did not even know would ever exist.

The only recourse we have, IMO, is that we go the way of Ireland in an amend. Ireland amended their Constitution in 2004 (25% foreign births taking place) to say that a person born on the island of Ireland, who at the time of birth not having, at least, one parent who was an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen cannot be entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law."

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

I did review the case brief for Plyler v Doe; which was quite interesting.

·5th Amendment provides Due Process – federal
·14th Amendment provides Equal Protection; which we refer to as Equal Protection Clause – state

In the case of Boling v Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that "...the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive". The justices' found that the 5th amendment's due process clause includes "an equal protection element but has not continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its fourteenth amendment jurisprudence".

So based on this I think the answer to your question would be no.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Thanks! I see that! Interesting! I bookmarked the ruling and was reading it by portions. Thanks for the legwork. There is so much to read and consider on this issue. Not cut and dried, that's for sure.

I also found this to be interesting:

Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, Senator Jacob Howard States the Intent of the 14th Amendment. Quote is taken from the last paragraph of the third column of the article.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Thanks for that link, here is another interesting quote by Sen. Howard.

Senator Jacob M. Howard said “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard



I also found this quote by the U.S. Attorney General in 1873 on the word 'jurisdiction'.



"The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)"


http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/11/...n-thereof-etc/



Lord have mercy!!! Looking at all this information now on what went on back is so interesting. Seems to me that folk were thinking about and dealing with this issue way back then, and not just pertaining to emancipated slaves.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Lots of interesting reading. I'm spending more time than I should, but it's too interesting to stop! LOL

Right, not just the emancipated slaves. The Chinese were also an issue.
They placed the Chinese in a different category when they passed the Naturalization Act of 1870. It restricted all immigration into the U.S. to only "white persons and persons of African descent". Congress had even passed a law, before the 1870 act, that forbid American vessels from transporting Chinese immigrants to the U.S. When that happened the sex ratio was really out of balance. Males to females, in 1860, were 19:1 and in 1890, it was 27:1. Then you had the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

On the point of "jurisdiction", this is what someone explained to me, yesterday, when I broached the subject of how an infant could be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof":

"It's not that a person has the ability to be subject to the laws of the state, but that the state can assert jurisdiction over that person. Even though a baby isn't going to break the laws of a state, the state can still assert jurisdiction over a baby, for instance in regards to custody issues and so on. The 14th Amendment isn't concerned with the loyalty of persons born in US jurisdictions, it's concerned with extending the protection and jurisdiction of American authority over all persons born in the United States."

I also agree that the only way to change the birthright citizenship is a Constitutional Amendment. Even if we argue with our logic and common sense, established law pulls us back.

I believe the 14th Amendment was written in the broad sense so that the legislature wouldn't have anymore problems like they did in the Dred Scott case.

You might enjoy going over this link as well, if you haven't already. It's pretty lengthy, but really interesting:
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09revi...isdiction.html

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

if anyone, does not reside in this country legally, then they need to go, if you want to be here, do it legally, and if you are illegally here, having a child just adds another illegal, my opinion, dt

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

That is all of our opinions, the only thing is, it appears the law is upholding the children being born here as having protection. We will have to craft an amendment. No way around that one. Anything else will look like political posturing. Bank on the Democrats calling foul and using the "racists" terminology.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

Honestly, I'm not offended by Bush bringing out his Mexican Cousin. I think the Democratic party has the minority population duped and they need to see that others of their race are not following them. I think Star Parker's book, "Uncle Sam's Plantation", is an excellent read appealing to the black community to open their eyes. I am following quite a few minority groups on Facebook. Very interesting to hear their passion.

Quote:

My hubby and I talked about this last night and we both agreed that the decision by the Supreme Court back then was very broad. The framers of the 14th amendment were on the right track in their discussions, however, for the most part I think the issue of immigration was only thought of in terms of Ellis Island, not shared borders to the North and South of the country.

I had in mind that their thinking was more on lines of, "Who wouldn't want to live in this grand country and pledge allegiance to it?" I don't think they had groups like, La Raza, in mind. But, I'm sure they were cautious of a usurping in some way, considering the problems they had with the French, as well as, Britain. So, yes, it was exceedingly broad and I wonder at it. But, fortunately, they left us with the power to amend. The strength of what we do have written (concerning the Founding Fathers) can only be the hand of God, in my opinion.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

For the record, I believe that preserving the familial bond of father, mother and child trumps our faulty interpretation of the Constitution.


It could not have been the intent of our founding fathers, or anyone after them to allow or even codify into law a procedure where the parents are deported but the child is technically legally required to stay in the U.S.


Does anyone think that our founding fathers and the scholars afterwards would consider the illegal immigrant to be guilty of "kidnapping" or some other obscure law prohibiting the transport of American citizens when the illegal immigrant takes their child with them?


Should the children of illegal immigrants be given passports so that when they leave with their parents, everything is "done the right way?"


Again, our interpretation of the Constitution must change.

A Constitutional Amendment is not necessary. A common sense approach to the immigration mess is.

If a minor is in the custody of an illegal immigrant, when the illegal immigrant goes, their "trophy" goes with them. It's their child, their responsibility.

Re: Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?
 

ON another note....
I found this to be quite interesting. Until 1996 families "could have applied for permanent residence based on good moral character and seven continuous years of residence in the United States". "But on Sept. 30, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which changed the standards to 10 years of continuous residence and "exceptional" hardship that affected not the undocumented immigrants but relatives who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents".

I point this out because I remember a case from California where a Filipino family was ordered to leave the U.S. after being here for 19 years. The family had visitor visas that expired in 1986, then in 1996 they applied for permanent residence status (based on asylum). Then it was denied in 2000 and were told to leave the U.S; they appealed this and were denied in 2002. The case then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (in SF); and was denied. When the family came in 1984 they had three children all of which are now adults (they were each served notice to leave the country). Long story short the parents screwed up, 20 years later bit them and their children in the behind. They all ended up leaving and going back to the Philippines.

I found this story to be quite interesting because the children of the parents in this case were born in the Philippines (not anchor babies), and brought here as toddlers. Their entire life has been here in the U.S. and was stripped away from them. From reading this story you know that the parents are dishonest about the situation when the children were old enough to question their citizenship status. I am wondering why the children didn't do anything of their own accord to become U.S. citizens; they did have enough common sense to question the parents, and obtain college degrees. Just shows a whole other side to the immigration issues in this country.

Here are the links for the story.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-0...ildren-parents

http://www.dreamactivist.org/blog/2008/10/21/bitterness-as-fremont-family-of-five-deported-to-philippines/