Anchor Babies…Next on Arizona’s List?

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by NewWine

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.

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.

So far as the courts and the Administration of the laws are concerned, I have supposed that every human being within their jurisdiction was in the sense of the word a citizen, that is, a person entitled to protection; but in so far as the right to hold property, particularly the right to require title to real estate, was concerned, that was a subject entirely within the control of the United States. It has been so considered in the state of Pennsylvania; and aliens and others who acknowledge no allegiance, either to the State or to the General Government, may be limited and circumscribed in that particular. I have supposed further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...dment_1866.gif

[NewWine]

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by NewWine

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.

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

[DividedThigh]

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

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

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

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.

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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.

This is exactly what happens when the issue is brought up and it ends up right back where it started. It's all political posturing and securing their cushy seats in Congress. Both sides do it I remember when Bush was running he mentioned and brought out a Mexican cousin to secure votes and the same has happened on the Democratic side Clinton is one just for starters. There definitely needs to be a Constitutional amendment I just don't see any way around it (due to the various interpretations of the law). This Arizona deal is going to force the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. Individual states are finding themselves in a catch-22 situation.

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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by NewWine

This is exactly what happens when the issue is brought up and it ends up right back where it started. It's all political posturing and securing their cushy seats in Congress. Both sides do it I remember when Bush was running he mentioned and brought out a Mexican cousin to secure votes and the same has happened on the Democratic side Clinton is one just for starters. There definitely needs to be a Constitutional amendment I just don't see any way around it (due to the various interpretations of the law). This Arizona deal is going to force the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. Individual states are finding themselves in a catch-22 situation.

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.

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.

[Jermyn Davidson]

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.

[NewWine]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

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. I think that the familial bond doesn't have to be broken, the parents (illegal aliens) have to leave and take their child/children with them. I think the citizenship status of the children should be based on the citizenship status of the parents; not where they are born.

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/