[Rushtalk] TRUMP IS RIGHT ABOUT ANCHOR BABIES
cwsiv at juno.com
Fri Nov 2 23:50:00 MDT 2018
TRUMP IS RIGHT ABOUT ANCHOR BABIES!
* Posted by Bruce Davis on August 19, 2015 at 11:00am
* View Blog
For some reason it has become commonly accepted that the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution makes it mandatory that anyone born in the United
States is automatically entitled to US citizenship. We often see those
ignorant allegations being pompously announced by ignorant media talking
heads and equally ignorant politicians as absolute facts. The legal
facts are quite different from their false assertions and the fact is
that the Constitution's 14th Amendment actually exclude certain
individuals from this automatic citizenship. This includes the children
of illegal immigrants or so-called “anchor babies”.
Lets just go over the history of the 14th Amendment. It was passed and
ratified on July 9, 1868 after the end of the civil war and the part of
the Amendment concerning automatic citizenship was specifically intended
to keep states from disenfranchising blacks born in the United States
from citizenship. The exact language on that part is as follows. "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."
Those who are ignorant of the law, which apparently is most of the US
population, often claim this gives blanket citizenship to all those
born in the United States. However, words mean something particularly
when it comes to the law and they ignore the phrase “and subject to the
In 1866 while this amendment was in the process of being passed Senator
Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by
stating: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national
law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include
persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong
to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the
Government of the United States, but will include every other class of
persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all
doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and
legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator [Edward Cowan when he
stated “A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection
of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude
American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the
United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully
in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on
the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United
States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
That is pretty clear and it is a mystery to me why everyone does not
This phrase has been also been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to
exclude anyone who is subject to the rule of a foreign government. They
specifically and appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation
of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873)
and 112 US 94 (1884). In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case the phrase "subject
to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers,
consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.
How much clearer can you get than that?
Because of the Supreme Court rulings Congress even had to pass special
legislation to permit American Indians US citizenship since they were
subject, due to treaties granting them independent rule, to rule by
their tribal governments, not the US government.
While some have erroneously interpreted this decision, in 1889 the Wong
Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the
14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in
determining the citizenship of the child.
Facts are not something to be debated and filtered through ones personal
political viewpoint. They are the truth concerning an issue and the
facts in both the 14th Amendment and the related Supreme Court decisions
on this issue are right there in writing for all to see! Hello, earth
to liberal idiots and RINO's, wake up and quit illegally trying to
modify the clear meaning of the Constitution!
Another fact is that the 1965 Immigration Act has been used to justify
the “anchor baby” citizenship rationale and somehow illegally authorize
a legal immigration status for the entire family of the "anchor baby".
This wild interpretation of the authority to do so was solely based on a
political rationale, not a valid legal analysis, since anyone with a
basic knowledge of the law knows a Federal statute cannot conflict with
the Constitution. This application of Federal law to supposedly make
children of illegal immigrants citizens and by extension their families
into a legal immigration status is flat out factually illegal. Another
indication that supposed qualified attorney's like Obama and Holder who
hold this view were either asleep in law school or simply do not care
about the Constitution.
The bottom line is that the millions of these “anchor babies” who
seemingly have been granted US citizenship are simply not legally
entitled to this status. As such they have zero right to vote or to
have any of the other legal rights reserved to citizens! This is once
again a case of our politicians trampling over the Constitution to
permit their political views to trump the clear intent of the
Constitution and its Amendments.
,= ,-_-. =.
America works when American citizens work.
Freedom and open source the GNU paradigm.
Kelly Ripa Finally Confirms The Rumors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk