Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?

[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

[theglory7]

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

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

[theglory7]

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

[Pressing-On]

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.

[Pressing-On]

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?

[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).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by NewWine

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).

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.)

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0649_ZO.html

[Pressing-On]

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 Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/illeg...#ixzz0r3AwyqS9

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."