tell me why...?

Question

...people keep calling babies born of illegal parents "anchors"?

the children themselves never did anyone any harm, and yet they are designated with such an evil term.

i hear people want to alter the 14th amendment. well, according to the amendment itself, no state has the right to deprive anyone of its privileges

when we're talking about border-crossing, the law is golden, but when it comes to the 14th amendment, its a different story? come on people!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

what say you, yahoo members?

i am in no way proposing amnesty as i understand it will never happen. i am speaking of the 14th amendment and that alone.

Answer 1

I agree with you that they definitely should not change the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. I also agree that the babies are not doing any harm by being born here. If a kid is born on American soil, the kid is an American; nobody should question that!

Answer 2

The anchor baby issue is a misnomer fable started by the media. Why the country does this against the U.S. Constitution is beyond me. Americas forefathers did not accept the English Common Law Jui Solis - as others will tell you. It's not true, and they specifically made mention that Americans and Naturalized citizens babies are of legal American citizenship based on Natural Law, and National Law, and not England's Common Law practice. England's Common Law was that "Any child born in any country was of English citizenship." That did not bowed well with America forefathers. So they put together the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Civil Rights to change the despised English Common Law forever.

The 14th Amendment was to include only the American Africans, and their children during that time, and when they were no longer in slavery. The 15th Amendment backs up the 14th Amendment. Later they also the added the Native Americans to the list of their status and babies as American citizens too.

Follow the links to the left for more info.
http://idexer.com/

People either tell you that America accepted Jui Solis. Or they tell you that U.S. v Wong Kim Ark started the anchor baby as a ruling that is law. Which is not true. But that is where the fable began.

Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wo...

Anchor babies are just another way of of saying those who misunderstand the Constitutions intent (which was for the freed slaves, the 15th Amendment in the Constitution backs that up) they all of a sudden decided that it meant if illegals babies were born on U.S. soil then the babies had automatic citizenship. And illegals thought that meant they couldn' t be deported because of the child's status. But they used the case U.S. v Wong Kim Ark as their argument as the facts.

Regarding the "subject to jurisdiction" from Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth: - "The 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."

Answer 3

14th Amendment: "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."

I don't know why illegal aliens should be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign land.

Anchor baby is not an evil term. I don't know if you believe that because it has a different meaning in Spanish. It simply means they are being used to gain defacto citizenship for the pregnant mom. It was never intended for aliens. It was intended for former slaves. It should not apply to illegal aliens or the children of illegal aliens. I guess I don't understand the law well enough or the legal definition of "subject to the jurisdiction". It seems to me the law shouldn't even apply.

Answer 4

This is what the 14th amedment really says.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
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.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

Answer 5

Because if a baby is born in the USA they get citizenship and some people will come to the USA sneak in illegally and have their baby because they know that is the law.
I am not saying they all do it but some do.
Then of course people sympathetic to the situation would say oh let the mother stay she needs to care for the baby. So the baby is metaphorically the anchor allowing someone illegal to stay here and in the future giving family members preference in the immigration sponsorship process.

This law was written in a time when people who supported ending slavery were worried about children, or instance say someone born to Thomas Jefferson ( he had a child with a slave its pretty much common knowledge now ) that they would be denied citizenship.

It wasnt intended for anyone to come in here like they are.
The law can be abused and is in some cases.

Answer 6

If you will read it, it states that you have to be a citizens of the United States.
It has been twisted around and now when illegals have babies here they are considered citizens, and mexico considers them citizens because they were born to mexican citizens.
It does need to be changed and made more clear to read that the Anchore babies are subject to the country that their parents are subject to. This is just another way for people to enter our country illegally and stay because they have to take care of their anchore baby.

Answer 7

Children born of "illegal immigrants" are referred to as "anchor babies" because their birth "anchors" their parents to the U.S. The "do-gooders" in the U.S. would not even consider separating children from parents; therefore, their parents are "anchored". Anyone in the U.S. who supports expulsion of illegal immigrants will be chastized because these "poor babies" will be left without parents.

Bah! Humbug! These "illegal" parents are manipulating our emotions. Illegal immigrants, no matter what country they come from, have no "right" to any social, educational, or economic privileges I have earned through 66 years of being a citizen of the U.S., nor my parents or grandparents who worked for the past 200 years.

My mother's grandparents were immigrants from Ireland and England, coming to this country with nothing. My father's great grandparents were forced from their lands in Georgia and Tennessee on the Trail of Tears; forced to abandon their language and culture, because the U.S. Government, under the presidency of Andrew Jackson, wanted to expand U.S. domination, satisfying the "white" dominance of mineral deposits and lucrative farmland. The Fourteenth Amendmen didn't help my Indian ancestors!

I have no sympathy for the "intruders", interlopers", who are inundating the U.S., a country my ancestors were forced to relinquish; a country we, the Indians, have always considered "sacred".

Mexicans have never fought for the independence of the United States, nor will they ever. The Mexicans will always be for the Mexicans. They don't care about anyone in the U.S.; all they care about is their culture, their language. Go to any public school in the U.S., and you can observe the disrespect American teachers get from the Hispanic students!

Answer 8

Just a name for the practice some illegals use to try and stay in the USA. It does not refer anything negative to the baby. It's more a reflection of the parents.

Answer 9

from time to time sure from time to time NO. being pregnant indications are comparable to indications of a era coming so from time to time that's totally not basic to tell. the very best thank you to comprehend is to attend until finally a era is previous due and do a hometest. i replaced into 7 weeks until now i found out with my daughter I by no potential felt ill pregnant sore boobs ANY indications of being pregnant yet, a + try. With this being pregnant until now my era replaced into due i felt warm, irriated, crampy, sore boobs, each little thing smelled undesirable. All being pregnant are differnt whether a females is having no indications and a era is previous due that's best to aim.

Answer 10

if a woman came across the border to deliver a baby, she has used it to secure herself a spot in America as her Child is American.

She used her baby as an anchor.

Nobody is running around calling an individual an Anchor Baby. It is a term to describe the American Policy that allows this woman and her child to stay here.