Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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?

I think the first question is really a true issue in all the illegal immigration kerfuffle. From what I have seen on protest signs around the country, it seems to me that those that are here illegally believe that they are entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Now when you think about this that would mean in their minds our U.S. Constitution applies to them as well.

Jurisdiction of the United States: If they commit a crime they are prosecuted here. But that one law which is a felony, the one about entering the country illegally, everyone has the worst case of glaucoma. That's a resounding you betcha they are.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NewWine

I think the first question is really a true issue in all the illegal immigration kerfuffle. From what I have seen on protest signs around the country, it seems to me that those that are here illegally believe that they are entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens. Now when you think about this that would mean in their minds our U.S. Constitution applies to them as well.

Jurisdiction of the United States: If they commit a crime they are prosecuted here. But that one law which is a felony, the one about entering the country illegally, everyone has the worst case of glaucoma. That's a resounding you betcha they are.

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.

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

I don't disagree that over the decades many people have turned a blind eye. However, I don't feel that many people have changed their attitudes on illegal immigration. What has actually happened is that for decades many people have been frustrated with the manner in which our government has dealt with illegal immigration, and now what has always been a tense situation has erupted. When you have border patrol agents being sentenced to prison for doing their job, Arizona's new law and prospective law, the two recent people being killed, amongst all the other immigration issues; this is the result. Needless to say, I don't think the fact that people have turned a blind eye is an excuse for those that are here illegally to be given a free pass in any way. It is what it is, they came here illegally so they need to go. Our government goes to great lengths to keep people from Haiti coming on rafts; they get turned around. The same thing should be applicable to everyone coming illegally. Bottom line everything is just one big mess.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by NewWine

I don't disagree that over the decades many people have turned a blind eye. However, I don't feel that many people have changed their attitudes on illegal immigration. What has actually happened is that for decades many people have been frustrated with the manner in which our government has dealt with illegal immigration, and now what has always been a tense situation has erupted. When you have border patrol agents being sentenced to prison for doing their job, Arizona's new law and prospective law, the two recent people being killed, amongst all the other immigration issues; this is the result. Needless to say, I don't think the fact that people have turned a blind eye is an excuse for those that are here illegally to be given a free pass in any way. It is what it is, they came here illegally so they need to go. Our government goes to great lengths to keep people from Haiti coming on rafts; they get turned around. The same thing should be applicable to everyone coming illegally. Bottom line everything is just one big mess.

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.

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

Thanks for the clarification on the "subject to jurisdiction". I know what you mean I have friends that are Hispanic and they really caught in this whole situation. 1- People look at them crazy and 2- They feel that those that are coming here illegally are hindering their chances of being treated fairly. It is an extremely frustrating thing for them to deal with. I've even had one be denied a job because she was told that she didn't speak Spanish correctly, when she has been speaking Spanish her entire life. (The job denial sparked a lot of emotions she has on illegal immigration.) Good point to bring out, because I think a lot of people think that all people of Hispanic descent side with those that are here illegally. I've heard many ask the question; "I came here the legal way why can't they?"

[Bowas]

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.

[Pressing-On]

From the ruling: Plyler v. Doe

"The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice..."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0202_ZO.html

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by Bowas

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.

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).