Oh, yes. That ;aw should be amended big time. For a baby to be an automatic citizen the mother (and father if he is part of the family unit) should have to be here legally. If the parent (s) are illegal so should the baby be!
2006-10-31 06:00:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Stick to Pet Rocks 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
What we are going to need is for the Supreme Court to grow a pair and actually do what the Constitutional Framers intended. The phrase that people have long relied on to assert that "anchor babies" should be given citizenship is that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that states:
"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."
The problem with thinking that this means anyone born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is automatically a citizen is that the people who wrote and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe that.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means:
"[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
The clause's primary author, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:
"[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Sen. Howard's introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause on the Senate floor further belies the argument:
"[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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."
We need judges that will stand up to the socialist left, the ACLU, La Raza, Mecha, and the Aztlan Reconquista Movement and declare once and for all that there is no such thing as an anchor baby.
2006-10-31 13:44:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think I agree...My husband and I lived in Germany for 3 years I had my son over there and he became a US citizen automatically because his mom and dad were US citizens. I think you should be a citizen where your parents are citizens.
2006-10-31 13:33:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Happy 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I totally agree.
2006-10-31 13:32:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Stacy 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
your question is ridiculous, trying to change the law. it is unconstitutional, if the kid born in U.S he must have the U.S citizen
2006-10-31 14:01:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by alejandra 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
YOu are correct and I bet this will be the next law changed
2006-10-31 13:27:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by LOUDOBBS 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
i totally agree. i think this is being talked about.
2006-10-31 13:43:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by stupidgianthampster 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I definitely agree with you.
2006-10-31 13:30:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
agreed
2006-10-31 13:27:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think there is talk of correcting that loophole.
2006-10-31 13:33:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous 7
·
0⤊
0⤋