Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Any Chance Of Success?

Lawmakers in 14 States Craft Bill to Deny Citizenship to 'Anchor Babies'

Source

Now, the knee-jerk reaction here is that these laws will be struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

Read the 14th Amendment (in which the concept of anchor babies is based upon) though:

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.

I am not a lawyer and I thank God for this. I have to wonder though how this phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof would be interpreted by the current SCOTUS.

Is there something to the fact that the parents are illegal and not subject to jurisdiction of the US?

Maybe I'm sounding ignorant, what are our thoughts?

17 comments:

Mustang said...

I believe the solution for the problems of the 14th Amendment (and a few others)... the solution to our demand that Congress devise a budget and stay within that budget, resides with a Constitutional Convention. This is where 33 state legislatures inform their governors they want a convention and by law, it must happen.

By the way, this country has never had a Constitutional Convention since ratification of the original constitution and first ten amendments.

Always On Watch said...

Using the 14th Amendment to justify anchor babies is a misapplication of that amendment. Check out the historical background of the amendment. See this.

Phill Senters said...

During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Linda said...

I guess it would be okay for these people to have the babies here, but that shouldn't mean the parents have the right to stay here. When the children become of age, they would be able to come back.

Brooke said...

Ohio is not on the list. :(

If liberals want to leave the law the way it is, I say give the illegal parent the option to take the kid back to whatever country the came from while they're being given the boot, while allowing the kid the option to return upon becoming an adult, or send the child to live with a legal relative. If neither can be done, the child should be remanded to state custody.

Or, we could stop it with the anchor baby bullshit.

Ticker said...

Brooke, the problem with remanding the "child" to state custody means only one thing, we, the taxpayer are still providing for the child and it is costly. The best thing, as you stated, is to do away with the anchor baby BS.

AOW, you are correct. The 14th Amendment was not intended to cover children of illegals but the activist in the courts decided it would be to their benefit to rule such as legal.

Mustang, one problem with a constitutional convention as long as the libtards are in contol of the Federal and State governments.They will re-write the constitution to suit their whims and socialist agenda. Until conservatives are in charge the risk is too high to make such a call. Also making the call say after this election when hopefully the conservatives will be back in control of most of the Federal and States would not guarentee that the convention would be held during the time conservatives are in charge. The libs could delay until they can once again take control of most of the state governments and then folks we have a problem.

Mustang said...

The problem, Ticker, is that while we wait for a time when conservatives are once again a majority in the federal government, we overlook the key element that I admittedly glossed over: state legislatures through governors call for a convention; this places the states in charge. It reasserts much abrogated state sovereignty. Do we think a democratically controlled state would join with 33 others? Remember, Progressives (Democrats) hate our Constitution (Soto-Mayor, Kagan, Ginsburg); they would like to see it replaced with some UN declaration that gives up national sovereignty to a globalist committee. Meanwhile, it is an exercise in futility when States attempt to exclude anchor-babies from the 14th Amendment. We have already seen the reaction of an activist (Progressive) federal judge in the Arizona immigration case. Meanwhile, thanks to the 17th Amendment, our “sovereign” states are no longer represented in Congress, and the 16th Amendment gives the federal government unlimited access to our bank accounts. The question then becomes, when is it ever completely safe to have a Constitutional Convention? I do agree it would be a very contentious convention, but if conservatives truly love America, they’ll walk the walk instead of merely talking the talk. Finally, in my mind, I see a Convention as a place for Americans to decide their future, not political parties.

Z said...

I've recently rec'd horrifying emails re Soros' licking his chops waiting for a Constitutional Convention...a possible reason for his running our country into the ground as he is now. I'd been for it before but am not now, I don't think (Mustang, you could probably convince me, but I'd be surprisedxx)

I believe we're the only country which has an anchor baby situation and that has to stop......give me one good reason for it to stay. They're breaking the law, they don't get rewarded, they go home.

cube said...

The anchor baby law was clear at it's time, but it's not clear now. It's time we revisit the consequences.

LASunsett said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LASunsett said...

Ticker,

//Also making the call say after this election when hopefully the conservatives will be back in control of most of the Federal and States would not guarantee that the convention would be held during the time conservatives are in charge. The libs could delay until they can once again take control of most of the state governments and then folks we have a problem.//

I do understand what you are trying to say here, but I am not sure I can completely agree with the reasoning you are attaching to your opinion.

When would be a good time? Should we allow our fear of liberals and what they might do to dictate our approaches?

Please keep in mind that I don't often disagree with you on most things. But by the same token, I cannot allow fear of what MAY happen to control MY stands, and from implementing the necessary interventions to save a dying republic.

Gramma 2 Many said...

Chuck, I honed in on exactly the same phrase as you. You know they are now called "New Americans." I will use the term loosely but I can only say New Americans are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They can't be, they are not here legally. If they were, the first jurisdiction thereof would be their deportation as they did not enter legally, these New Americans.

Chuck said...

Mustang, I agree but good luck on that

AOW, it was to give slaves citizenship

Phil, good find

Linda, I agree completely. I get tired of the whining over "breaking families apart" it is a decision made by the family, not the government.

Brooke, agreed on both points

Chuck said...

Ticker, scary but true on the convention. Abortion on demand (paid for by us). A "right" to health insurance (paid for by us). Ban on religion (except of course Islam). We cannot give them this opening.

Chuck said...

Mustang, good points but I see the traps Ticker lays out. We could be talking 10 - 15 years before we get around to start to ratify it. The other danger is the one you pointed out, which "conservatives" will be fighting for us, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter?

Chuck said...

Z, the 14th had a good rationale for being enacted, the slaves should have been made citizens. It has just far outlived it's usefulness.

Cube, agreed

Gramma, thanks

Chuck said...

LA, you guys are making me feel schizophrenic. You are all making very good points.

But by the same token, I cannot allow fear of what MAY happen to control MY stands, and from implementing the necessary interventions to save a dying republic.

I agree with this point. The problem is that if what Ticker is saying comes to pass, we will be left with a country that none of us would recognize. While things are broken, I cannot say for certain I am willing to take the chance of destroying a Constitution that only needs to be tweaked.

Mustang, I went back and reread your comment. This does have considerable merit

Finally, in my mind, I see a Convention as a place for Americans to decide their future, not political parties.

It would be the perfect solution but I think I have become too jaded to think it would happen.

I think part of the problem is society is different than it was over 200 years ago. Americans are far more selfish and narrow minded than what we had from the framers of the Constitution.

Great discussion, thanks