Anchor Baby Policy Needs to be Voted Down or Replaced ... Too Many (Mostly Mexican) Illegals Abuse the Policy?

mason x

yep,
it cost me/my wife $878.40 for blood work for a new pregnancy.

the mexicans get it free.

if that's not total f-ing bull-sheet, I don't know what is!

Denise B

I agree 150% !!! If we get all of these illegals and abusers out of this country, the Americans here might have a chance of jobs and making some money... I am not against people bettering themselves.. but dont take away from me and my family to do it

Ragman9432

Anchor babies need to be deported too!!!

TIMOTHY D L

Agreed!

kit

Get them OUT!!!
She is not "Rosa Parks" like she so smugly thinks she is.
Rosa Parks was a legal citizen of this country and the whole story isn't even the same

kimberly0627

Agree

princess_29_71

I agree with you.

answers999

I agree wholeheartedly! This article is an inside view and clearly states what we knew already. If I go to my County Health department in Florida, appointments can't be made for closer than 60 days out to get certification for my children to start school. But the lobby is always packed! with pregnant hispanic women getting free prenatal care.

They've got medicaid, foodstamps and cash assistance while their husbands / boyfriends are out making money. The system looks the other way when they dont declare the full number of people and amount of income in the household. They send them to the spanish "interpreters" who school them on what to put on their applications to get assistance. It's a real racket.

Answ3r3r

You need to respect the law, if you don't agree with the law move somewhere else...

yars232c

Cora, I copied this from JD, he gets this credit you can't say they are different:

---
The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:

The Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT just physical presence.
(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

There is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

The Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.
(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.

The so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.
In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.

Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.

The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.

Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.
The phrase â€œsubject to the jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€ is properly understood to mean â€œsubject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.â€

For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.

According to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year.
Once a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws.
Even before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority.

A group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem RIGHT NOW.

Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement Stated :

"The situation we have today is absurd,There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."

(Sound Familiar??)

DAR

Politically, I think this is unlikely to happen. Instead I think we should focus on removing the family reunification principle that allows families to come in above other quotas that Kennedy put in in 1965. We should say that right only applies to citizens with one citizen or unconditional permanent resident parent.

That would be much more politically possible, and would address the problem of illegals trying to leverage THEMSELVES into legal status by having babies here.

The extreme positions make nice headlines, but sometimes our politicians call for them knowing it will appease their base but never pass, so there is no real risk to asserting we should have them. I think we should make it less easy for them to play that game by asking for things that are achievable, politically.

However, I think the warrant dodger hiding behind her child and the politics of not being dragged from a church should be deported, immediately.

kysteelgirl

Repealing the 14th amendment would be a very good start on solving our ILLEGAL immigration problem. I am absolutely in favor of this idea - so much so that I have sent hundreds of emails, letters & made phone calls to the "elected class" to voice my opinion!
If every middle-class American would do likewise the "elected class" would have to listen! Unfortunately, most of us were raised to believe our govt. would put the interest of Americans first. Open your eyes this is not happening....Republicans help the rich, big business & the ILLEGAL immigrants, Democrats side with welfare people & ILLEGAL immigrants. I wonder if anyone, any party, has what it takes to ensure our way of life is not destroyed......not in my lifetime!

gokart121

Right on the money...we need an immigration treaty with Mexico FAST, that will govern the 'anchor baby' issue also.

How deep in debt are we already, how deep are we going? Does Congress still have any concept of public opinion/accountability, or have they basically just decided that 'they know best' etc? Talk about your nanny-statism, it'd sure be nice if they lived up to their job and took charge of the borders and prevented people from crossing them illegally in the first place, eh?

Hadenough

Agree. If I have a baby in your living room-should you be responsible? Did I get to live in your house forever with my whole family? Should you pay for all my cost?

Yes the law has been abused.

wolcott_boy37

I'm from Chicago and I think they ought to burn that church with them inside, I don't want to pay for their deportation. I'd rather pay for the match.

Yukaza

I agree,if this easy bridge to America was eliminated ,there would be fewer ways to stay in this country illegally.Deport the anchor baby/babies along with its illegal parent.
Great article,every taxpayer should be made to read it,email it to your friends look at the truth about this practice by illegal immigrants/criminals.and the only people on here with brains are those that see the real cost of this policy.I pay for the illegals anchor babies with the taxes I pay and my hard work,the business I own and the taxes paid by my business.I am writing letters to Washington,to try to get this unfair law repealed.Sanity must prevail,over sentiment.No anchor baby amnesty,no instant citizenship brought about by an illegal act.No illegal immigration.

I do agree with corogryph as to careful wording of any law about this situation very careful wording or it could back fire in ways we would not want to happen.

coragryph

If you want to change the Constitution, go ahead. But, please suggest an alternate wording for that section if you plan on denying citizenship to people born in the US.

As far as the "anchor baby policy", that's unrelated to the grant of citizenship for the child. One has nothing to do with the other.

Isn't there some kind of huge movement right now to recognize the rights of a child independent of those of the mother? So, leave the constitution alone and simply have the immigration laws provide that a child under a certain age cannot sponsor a relative for resident alien status. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there is already a law to that effect.

Look very carefully at the consequences of stripping citizenship from a person based purely as a result of actions done by the kid's parents. Look at how many dangerous loopholes that might create. And think about the much simpler alternatives, which is to deal with the actions of parent's themselves, independent of what rights are granted to the child.

Because if people are going to argue that unborn children have constitutional rights independent of the mother, isn't it a bit hypocritical to argue that a child that is born doesn't have rights, just because of actions of the mother?

richietcfan

You're so right.

AbsintheLover

The Anchor Baby policy is an established law. Laws like it have been around since the era of the "Pax Romana" during the roman empire where anyone born inside rome would be considered a roman citizen and be treated as a roman. America is a melting pot of different social/religious and national backgrounds and a child should not be denied citizenship in our country on the basis of what its parents did. The child is innocent.

CHer

GROW UP PEOPLE, THIS IS WHY THE US IS WHAT IT IS. THE US IS A WONDERFUL COUNTRY THAT IS MADE OF PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER WHAT THE HELL DOES EVERYONE THINK THAT NOW IT IS YOURS AND WE SHOULD JUST BUILD A BIG WALL AND NOT LET ANYONE IN ANYMORE.

THANK YOU AVSINTHELOVER FINALLY SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: