Legislators set sights on "anchor babies" (14th Amendment content)

[Deluge Of Sound]

or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Law.

The gist of it is that a group of politicians at the state level (state senator, state rep, etc.) are trying to adjust the 14th Amendment's coverage--basically to disallow people born of illegal parentage from becoming citizens if they're born in America.

So what do you think? Do we leave the constitution as written and sacrosanct, or do we acknowledge that the constitution (and by extension the founding fathers) couldn't have seen everything coming?

Originally Posted by CNN

A group of state legislators opposed to illegal immigration plan to propose a legislative "fix" Wednesday that would prevent children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from being citizens, a spokesman said.
The group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, will reveal their strategy at a Wednesday morning news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Ty McCauslin said.
The coalition counts members from 40 states. It argues that the 14th Amendment has been wrongly applied to so-called "anchor babies."
The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born ... in the United States" automatically become U.S. citizens.
The group's proposal "is to fix the misapplication of the 14th Amendment as it applies to the children of illegal aliens," McCauslin told CNN.
The group would not divulge additional details of the proposal before it is officially announced, but said that there would be several constitutional scholars on hand to vouch for its legality.
Besides unauthorized immigrants, no other group would be affected by the proposal, the spokesman said.

Link Here

[username n/a]

Yeah, because this isn't totally ****ed or anything.

[Selta]

Scary topic for OT here... might end up messy .
I really don't know how I feel about this... I'd have to do some fact-finding and such before I really commented on it.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by Ray Salamon

Scary topic for OT here... might end up messy .
I really don't know how I feel about this... I'd have to do some fact-finding and such before I really commented on it.

I think we can keep it to, say, 75% reasonable discourse, 10% kneejerk responses, and 15% carrots.

The thing I find most interesting about it is that it, (political) geographically speaking, the people who are usually all for keeping the Constitution the same are the ones that want to change it--and vice versa, I assume.

[MakiSupaStar]

Well, I'm not sure how they can do it. There's only one way I can see this working and it's based on the following example.

I can't remember what's the exact status of babies born to traveling pregnant women of different nationalities. For instance, let's say a German national is traveling to the United States for something like a funeral, or to visit an ailing family member, or some other kind of emergency unscheduled trip, and she goes into labor prematurely and delivers a child. IIRC (and I hope someone can clarify this for me) that child is not considered a US citizen even though it was born on US soil. That child is considered a German national like it's mother. I simply chose an German national to avoid any of the typical nationalities we think of when we think of illegal aliens. If this exception is allowed, then I can see this having a foothold. If this child is considered a US citizen, then I can't see this legislation having any legs.

[Atoz]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Well, I'm not sure how they can do it. There's only one way I can see this working and it's based on the following example.

I can't remember what's the exact status of babies born to traveling pregnant women of different nationalities. For instance, let's say a German national is traveling to the United States for something like a funeral, or to visit an ailing family member, or some other kind of emergency unscheduled trip, and she goes into labor prematurely and delivers a child. IIRC (and I hope someone can clarify this for me) that child is not considered a US citizen even though it was born on US soil. That child is considered a German national like it's mother. I simply chose an German national to avoid any of the typical nationalities we think of when we think of illegal aliens. If this exception is allowed, then I can see this having a foothold. If this child is considered a US citizen, then I can't see this legislation having any legs.

If that is truly the interpretation, then children of illegals aren't citizens to begin with, and this is all much ado about nothing, I assume. It's if the interpretation differs when it gets difficult.

[burk48237]

I doubt these state laws would hold up if the courts apply the all be it recent court interpretation.

The Amendment was clearly adopted to apply to the children of recently emancipated slaves. And even as late as the turn of the century didn't apply to anyone else. You have to remember that in 1868 the country didn't really have an illegal immigration "problem." For the record it wasn't until the 1970s that the courts began to apply this to children of illegal aliens. Over 100 years after the amendment was adopted. In fact in it wasn't until 1898 that courts found this right extends to even legal immigrants or aliens that weren't born into slavery. So as late as 1960 unless you had a green card, visa or were the child of a diplomat you weren't considered an anchor baby.

But I can't see them undoing those changes and precedent fifty years later. And unlike some other recent disputed court findings the language of the first paragraph of the fourteenth is pretty plain and indisputable even if you can argue that wasn't their intentions.

Section 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.

The only phrase that could overturn the "anchor Babies" precedent is the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I suppose you might be able to make the argument that since their parents are here illegally, they are not subject to jurisdiction of the country?

But I IMO suspect the only way to deal with the anchor babies "problem" (if it is one) is the amendment process. After all that's what amendments are for, they aren't easy to pass, but I suspect the fourteenth wasn't either.

[Ziltoid]

Ok, I hope my question isn't going to make this thread ugly but I kind of suspect it will, so sorry in advance if it happens.

Why are ''anchor babies'' a problem?

[JimB52]

Wouldn't 'fixing' the 14th amendment be a case of visiting the sins of the father on the sons?

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I doubt these state laws would hold up if the courts apply the all be it recent court interpretation.

The Amendment was clearly adopted to apply to the children of recently emancipated slaves. And even as late as the turn of the century didn't apply to anyone else. You have to remember that in 1868 the country didn't really have an illegal immigration "problem." For the record it wasn't until the 1970s that the courts began to apply this to children of illegal aliens. Over 100 years after the amendment was adopted. In fact in it wasn't until 1898 that courts found this right extends to even legal immigrants or aliens that weren't born into slavery. So as late as 1960 unless you had a green card, visa or were the child of a diplomat you weren't considered an anchor baby.

But I can't see them undoing those changes and precedent fifty years later. And unlike some other recent disputed court findings the language of the first paragraph of the fourteenth is pretty plain and indisputable even if you can argue that wasn't their intentions.



The only phrase that could overturn the "anchor Babies" precedent is the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I suppose you might be able to make the argument that since their parents are here illegally, they are not subject to jurisdiction of the country?

But I IMO suspect the only way to deal with the anchor babies "problem" (if it is one) is the amendment process. After all that's what amendments are for, they aren't easy to pass, but I suspect the fourteenth wasn't either.

Along those same lines, here's a pretty good explanation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/rev...isdiction.html

This is what I was thinking when I presented my example of a visiting national on a temporary visa who gives birth to a child. The US generally doesn't recognize these children as US citizens. Now, since a hospital doesn't check a mother and father's citizenship status when filling out the paperwork necessary for a birth certificate, I believe anchor babies gain citizenship simply because of a lack of oversight concerning the issuance of a birth certificate. But if someone were to challenge this child's citizenship, the child's citizenship would probably default to the nationality of it's parents. Now whether or not this has happened, or whether or not the Supreme court has made a ruling one way or the other regarding such a challenge, I simply don't know.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Ziltoid

Ok, I hope my question isn't going to make this thread ugly but I kind of suspect it will, so sorry in advance if it happens.

Why are ''anchor babies'' a problem?

They're viewed as a problem because there recently has been a movement by people to come to the US illegally either while expecting a child, or while they're here illegally they have a child simply to gain citizenship for their child. Then they can be more protected from deportation because they have a child that is a citizen and they are essentially the guardians of that child. The general welfare of a child is taken into consideration, and since a child is best raised it's natural parents, the government doesn't generally deport illegal aliens because it would not be in the interest of the child.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Do we leave the constitution as written and sacrosanct, or do we acknowledge that the constitution (and by extension the founding fathers) couldn't have seen everything coming?

I think that is a HUGE dilemma for the US.

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

They're viewed as a problem because there recently has been a movement by people to come to the US illegally either while expecting a child, or while they're here illegally they have a child simply to gain citizenship for their child. Then they can be more protected from deportation because they have a child that is a citizen and they are essentially the guardians of that child. The general welfare of a child is taken into consideration, and since a child is best raised it's natural parents, the government doesn't generally deport illegal aliens because it would not be in the interest of the child.

Thanks.

Bahhh, it might just be me but I don't see that as a problem.

Damn tolerant canucks!

edit:

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

Do we leave the constitution as written and sacrosanct, or do we acknowledge that the constitution (and by extension the founding fathers) couldn't have seen everything coming?

I'm curious to see what will happen for that.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by bassybill

I think that is a HUGE dilemma for the US.

I agree. While there have been new amendments, and changes made within the last 100 years, there is currently a real tendency to view the Constitution as something almost the equivalent to the word of god IMO. Personally, I personally see it as a work in progress, that is damn near close to perfect, but amazing in the fact that it provides for a process for its own revision.

[jmattbassplaya]

I'm interested to hear how other countries handle this situation.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Ziltoid

Thanks.

Bahhh, it might just be me but I don't see that as a problem.

Damn tolerant canucks!

edit:


I'm curious to see what will happen for that.

It is when vast resources, services, and monies are spent harboring the illegal aliens. In California this translates to somewhere between 12-15 billion a year. Coincidentally, California has been operating in debt for roughly the same amount of money for about 7 years now. The problem is contributing to the collapse of our state economy.

Now if the babies are in fact deemed legal citizens (which IMO they are) then I don't think there's anything we can do about it, but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring legislation to close the loophole.

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

It is when vast resources, services, and monies are spent harboring the illegal aliens. In California this translates to somewhere between 12-15 billion a year. Coincidentally, California has been operating in debt for roughly the same amount of money for about 7 years now. The problem is contributing to the collapse of our state economy.

Now if the babies are in fact deemed legal citizens (which IMO they are) then I don't think there's anything we can do about it, but I wouldn't be opposed to exploring legislation to close the loophole.

Instead of harboring those with anchor babies why not make them citizen and help them find a job for the sake of the baby and other reasons, this could lead to a good economic growth over the time? It may be a bit idealistic but I don't see what's so sacred about citizenship, more tax payers and people stimulating the economy sounds good to me. Then again I'm not fully aware of the phenomenon and everything attached to it so my comment may be totally irrelevant.

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by Ziltoid

Instead of harboring those with anchor babies why not make them citizen and help them find a job for the sake of the baby and other reasons, this could lead to a good economic growth over the time? It may be a bit idealistic but I don't see what's so sacred about citizenship, more tax payers and people stimulating the economy sounds good to me. Then again I'm not fully aware of the phenomenon and everything attached to it so my comment may be totally irrelevant.

Yeah. Let's just agree to disagree then. I don't have the time/energy to get into it right now.

[Ziltoid]

No problem here, but like I said some of what I said is probably based on my lack of knowledge of the situation and the way it really works, as I don't know much about the whole thing with illegal immigrants/anchor babies/etc.

So if you get some time on your hands sometime I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Ziltoid

Instead of harboring those with anchor babies why not make them citizen and help them find a job for the sake of the baby and other reasons, this could lead to a good economic growth over the time? It may be a bit idealistic but I don't see what's so sacred about citizenship, more tax payers and people stimulating the economy sounds good to me. Then again I'm not fully aware of the phenomenon and everything attached to it so my comment may be totally irrelevant.

It becomes much more of a problem when a country that normally experiences 5-6% unemployment is dealing with 10% unemployment. The real question to your paragraph is what jobs?

The other issue is because many aren't here legally (documented) they slip thru the tax rolls and don't pay taxes while their children enjoy the benefits of citizenship. In things like college tuition and unemployment benefits this can add up to thousands of dollars per kid. The United States is probably the only large developed country with first world benefits that is shares a huge, tough to control border with a large country with many third world problems.

Many of Mexico's citizens (and I can't blame them) desire to come here, because even with an economic slow down they still just by existing in the country get better health care, education, and economic status. The poor in the US do far better then most of the middle class in the third world. This is compounded by the problem that Mexico is almost at civil war status with drug crime.