State legislators to challenge ‘anchor babies’

From USA Today/The Arizona Republic

“PHOENIX — Republican lawmakers in 15 states Tuesday announced a nationwide effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to illegal immigrants.

A national coalition called State Legislators for Legal Immigration is coordinating the effort.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce said Kansas lawyer Kris Kobach, who helped draft Arizona’s tough immigration law now on appeal in the federal courts, is working with him and Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh to draft a bill that all the states could use as a model on the citizenship issue….”

Here’s the relevant portion of the 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. 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.”

Opponents of so-called birthright citizenship hang their argument on the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing that children of illegal immigrants do not meet that test. In practice, however, federal courts have read that language very differently, ruling repeatedly that every person in this country is subject to its jurisdiction except for foreign diplomats.

An illegal immigrant, for example, could be prosecuted for a crime here because he or she is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. But foreign diplomats are subject only to the jurisdiction of their home country, not of the United States, which is how the concept of diplomatic immunity is derived.

The 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War, very clearly makes the determination of U.S. citizenship a federal rather than a state function. The strategy of the State Legislators for Legal Immigration is apparently to try to subvert the constitutional language by passing state laws that bar issuance of birth certificates to children of parents who cannot prove citizenship.

One of the members of the group is Georgia state Rep. Tim Bearden, R-Villa Rica. In other words, coming soon to a state Legislature near you….

473 comments Add your comment

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
3:45 pm

First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America. That’s it. End of argument.

larry

October 20th, 2010
3:49 pm

One of the members of the group is Georgia state Rep. Tim Bearden, R-Villa Rica. In other words, coming soon to a state Legislature near you….

And this is a suprise ?

Nice Guy

October 20th, 2010
3:49 pm

Just remember, this wouldn’t be an issue in any Legislature if there weren’t a significant amount of people who intentionally abuse this law for their own personal gain.

jt

October 20th, 2010
3:49 pm

Regardless of how you stand on this issue,

it serves Washington well.

As they pilfer your family and future.

Granny Godzilla

October 20th, 2010
3:51 pm

josef

you got that right.

anchor babies

what a horrible term.

stands for decibels

October 20th, 2010
3:53 pm

First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America. That’s it. End of argument.

And as long as we’re defining our terms, their parents are not “Illegals.” They are human beings.

Nice Guy

October 20th, 2010
3:54 pm

“anchor babies what a horrible term.”

Horrible is a little strong, I’ll agree. But that is an accurate term, even if it is offensive slang.

Jay

October 20th, 2010
3:57 pm

My apologies, NightTrain, I wrote that phrase backwards. It has now been fixed….

jm

October 20th, 2010
3:58 pm

Off topic – I’m in Buffett’s camp. I’m not crazy about higher taxes, we need to cut spending and entitlements. But I guess I’d be ok with a (slightly) higher tax rate on people making more than $5mm per year….

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/pf/investing/buffett_ben_stein.fortune/index.htm

King of All

October 20th, 2010
3:59 pm

Numb-skulls like Rep. Tim Bearden have to pretend to be productive since he is incapaple of solving any real issues. It works everytime as republicans who are still PO’d at civil rights and slavery fall for it.

Haywood Jablome

October 20th, 2010
4:00 pm

We worship the constitution except when we don’t.

Night Train

October 20th, 2010
4:00 pm

josef nix, really, that’s the best argument you’ve got? How about we start some place around, oh I don’t know, 1776!

Scout

October 20th, 2010
4:00 pm

Jay:

All illigal immigrants must be “diplomats” anyway because they are not being prosecuted. So what’s the big deal ?

Since they are not subject to our jurisdiction …………. weigh anchor !

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:02 pm

night Train

Well, at least if we went for 1776 I’d get to stay…all of ancestors were here then…

jm

October 20th, 2010
4:02 pm

On topic – No other country in the world works this way. Perhaps we need to change the 14th amendment….

Scout

October 20th, 2010
4:02 pm

Excuse me ……….. “illegal”

Jay

October 20th, 2010
4:02 pm

Josef, I pulled it because I had misled him with my mistake. He is of course free to repost what he wishes.

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:03 pm

OK, who cares? here’s one for the xenopboes and nativists; what part of “born OR naturalized in the United States” do you not understand? I’m just darn happy the Founding Fathers didn’t have an * font on their laser printer (* ‘escept anchor babies’) which also begs the question; ‘please direct us to the Article or Amendment, which deals with anchor babies.

Night Train

October 20th, 2010
4:04 pm

With the correction, then I’ll retract my previous comments.

However, I do not think kids born to people who are not in this country legally should be granted citizenship. They should carry the same status as their parents. If one of the parents is a citizen then the little one should be a citizen.

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:05 pm

Perhaps they’ll just have to make do without a long form, much to Scout’s chagrin. Either that or they’ll simply have to be aborted since they cannot have a birth certificate.

jm

October 20th, 2010
4:05 pm

A. Illegal Immigrant is a perfectly accurate combination of an adjective and noun.
B. Anchor Babies is just good metaphorical slang in my book.

Who cares. Would be more relevant to debate the substance of the issue rather than terminology.

saywhat?

October 20th, 2010
4:05 pm

We are strict constructionists regarding the Constitution, until we are not. Right Republiconservateatardibertarians?? The document was not meant to be “interpreted” with changing times, unless we do it.

md

October 20th, 2010
4:05 pm

Is interesting when folks try to circumvent the law when it comes to taxes, corporations, Wall St, politicians, etc etc…………..folks scream bloody murder.

Yet when it comes to illegal immigration…..not so much.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:05 pm

JAY

It just sort of makes mine and your comments apropos to what…

paleo

Right. And I really don’t think the solons want to head down this slippery slope…

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:06 pm

“Tim Bearden have to pretend to be productive since he is incapaple of solving any real issues.”

I think that is so true — most legislatures are so ill equipped for the job all they can do to get any attention is espouse their parties extreme ideology and the tools fall for it.

jm

October 20th, 2010
4:08 pm

Night Train – second that. And there should be some sort of path to citizenship, work visa, or expulsion. The citizenship and work visa path would entail significant fines, penalties, a criminal record check, and paying back taxes (if possible to estimate). Like a $20,000 penalty that would be repaid over 10 years.

Penalties work for the uninsured on Health Care. Seems they’re appropriate here as well.

larry

October 20th, 2010
4:09 pm

I wonder if this comes to fruitiion, what happens to someone in this country ,someone from Ireland, who has overstayed their visa and who happens to be pregnant , has their baby in this country ?

What happens then?

Peadawg

October 20th, 2010
4:10 pm

“Republican lawmakers in 15 states Tuesday announced a nationwide effort to change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted and stop granting citizenship to babies born in the USA to illegal immigrants.”

Good! This, along w/ banning illegals from colleges, should be common sense.

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:10 pm

larry,

It’s okay because they aren’t brown.

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:10 pm

Night Train, do you read your copy before you click ’submit’? what you “think” isn’t important. I “think” is was a mistake to invade Iraq. I “think” the Bush White House should have paid greater attention to the August 2001 “bin Ladend determined to strike U.S.” NSC memo. seems to me there is nothing to “grant”. once born, they are U.S. citizens. there is nothing to “grant”. now, maybe they have to return to Mexico or Honduras, or Belize to be “granted” citizenship in the nations mom and dad call “home”.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:11 pm

larry
The Irishman is white and English speaking…they can stay even if they are Papists…

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:12 pm

md, but what about when the law clearly identifies those “born… in the United States” as citizens? seems there are some who want to ‘re-write the law” – in which case those born here sans American parents would be circumventing the law.

larry

October 20th, 2010
4:13 pm

And what if the person from Ireland has a good tan?

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:13 pm

Any person willing to work and pay their taxes should be granted automatic citizenship, and vice versa.

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:14 pm

larry,

It’s okay because their last name is O’Riley and not Garcia.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:14 pm

“It’s barbaric. It’s Unamerican. It’s positively French.” –Mark Twain

Sarkozy and Adolf Hitler would be proud…

md

October 20th, 2010
4:15 pm

“Then Buffett sums up his feelings about it, saying his wish to raise taxes on the very rich is really about social justice more than about fiscal policy.”

“Social Justice”, no such thing…………

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:15 pm

larry
If the Irishman has a good tan, then s/he’s also a good Republican!

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:16 pm

Mirror,

“Any person willing to work and pay their taxes should be granted automatic citizenship, and vice versa.”

Interesting argument, but it just goes to show how hypocritical the Peadawgs of the world are who espouse for the free market, but don’t really mean it. People work for the wages the business owner give them — it’s the free market, and yet they howl.

jm

October 20th, 2010
4:17 pm

SEE ARTICLE ON CORPORATE TAXES, OFFSHORE CORPORATE MONEY, AND OUR CRUMMY ECONOMY.

You can thank our US Government for stupid tax policy. These CEO’s are not exactly the fat cat conservative type either.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704469004575533880328930598.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

larry

October 20th, 2010
4:18 pm

Why dont they strengthen the laws against the businesses that hire the immigrants in the first place? Strengthen the fines and jail time.

OR have the businesses sponsor the immigrants they want to hire , let the businesses pay a fee and then grant them citizenship, therefore they pay taxes , SS, Medicare, HCR, etc etc.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:18 pm

And, just for argument’s sake, what if the “anchor baby” has a United States citizen parent? Do we play Solomon, cut the lil bastid in half and send part of him/her the the netherworld?

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:18 pm

hey, you know what I learned recently? Elvis Presley’s infamous Manager Col. Tom Parker was one of ‘em illegals (only his back was wet from the Atlantic Ocean, not the Rio Grande). he emmigrated from Holland, and was not an American citizen. the injustice of it all. the Manager of perhaps the greatest icon of American pop culture was here illegally (does this make Elvis an anchor client?). and worst part, he took a good paying job from a hardworking American (forgot the dude’s name). and truth be told, the Col. wasn’t really a Col. like that clown in Ohio (Iott), he was an “honorary” member of the Louisiana Volunteer Militia, or some glorified Boy Scout troop. who knew?

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:18 pm

If it is acceptable by Buffett, then it is acceptable by me. Of course, I am speaking of increased taxation for the wealthy, as he chooses to define such. To say otherwise might be misconstrued as wealth envy.

larry

October 20th, 2010
4:19 pm

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:15 pm

LOL!!

getalife

October 20th, 2010
4:19 pm

The cons in France and Germany are attacking immigrants too.

Guess we have to fight fas cism again.

jm

October 20th, 2010
4:20 pm

follow on to my 4:17 – I think Mr. Chambers is shouting at White House that apparently doesn’t have any open doors, windows, or phone lines.

The only solution is hopefully a good Republican candidate for president in 2012….

Penny Lane

October 20th, 2010
4:20 pm

I have friends who work in Quarantine and they tell me that they see this situation regularly: heavily pregnant women flying into the country just to stay in the United States for a few weeks and give birth.

Then they fly back to their home country with their newest little U.S. citizen in their arms! They always make sure to obtain a U.S. passport for the kid before they leave.

These are not the “poorest of the poor” sneaking over the border and risking their lives. These people are smart, savvy, and totally manipulating the system. Am I supposed to have a bleeding heart for them?

larry

October 20th, 2010
4:21 pm

So Col. Parker was an immigrant from Holland, Wow.

Wonder if he had any ” anchor babies ” ?

What an inhumane term.

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:22 pm

Bob Neal. Bob Neal was Elvis’s first Manager

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:22 pm

The 14th Amendment was put there to keep just such as this from happening. Parse it any way you want, but the occupation authorities knew good and well if they didn’t, there would be a move to deny the freedmen citizenship. One of their wiser moves, IMHO.

Del

October 20th, 2010
4:22 pm

As I understand the 14th. Amendment it was originally intended to prevent declaring former slaves non-citizens and deporting them to Africa. Birthright citizenship serves no worthwhile purpose today and only provides illegals another way to game our system as they’ve been allowed to do for too long. Don’t believe that, just go down to the Woman Centers at metro hospitals and observe how many illegal expectant mothers come through and are immediately admitted as Medicaid patients. Their new born babies go on Medicaid too right after birth. Time to do away with this scam on America.

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:23 pm

People work for the wages the business owner give them — it’s the free market, and yet they howl.

Yes. But these peasants work tax-free since they have no social security number and that is likely where the rub is with the Peadawgs of the world. If they paid taxes as everyone else does then they might be accepted into our society as one of the gang — a fellow serfer.

andygrd

October 20th, 2010
4:24 pm

Supreme Court decisions
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.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 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. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

md

October 20th, 2010
4:24 pm

“md, but what about when the law clearly identifies those “born… in the United States””

I very well may be wrong, but somehow I don’t envision the writers of the 14th starting a global race of pregnant women from every country imaginable. From what I’m reading, folks wait until the last possible minute and then cross over to have their baby. All prior cases were more about folks that were already here – the slaves and immigrants brought in legally (at the time) for labor. Not a who can get to the front of the line first at all costs to circumvent the law mentality.

We are once again rewarding those for doing things the wrong way…………..but why should that be a surprise.

And, what do you tell the folks that have waited for years to get here the “right” way that have since had 1, 2, 3 kids…..none of which get to be citizens……………..

RW-(the original)

October 20th, 2010
4:25 pm

First off, they’re not “anchor babies.” They are citizens of the United States of America.

josef,

You seem to making a distinction and one you seem fairly indignant about, but these children being considered US citizens is what makes them anchor babies.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:26 pm

Okay, now what if the native country of the mother does not recognize the child born on foreign soil as a citizen?

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:27 pm

“If they paid taxes as everyone else does then they might be accepted into our society as one of the gang — a fellow serfer.”

Fellow serfer…good one.

But alot of them do pay taxes like everyone else — they just don’t receive the benefits like everyone else (SS in this case)

Hillbilly Deluxe

October 20th, 2010
4:28 pm

Interesting that y’all brought up the Irish. Ireland doesn’t have birthright citizenship.

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:28 pm

Penny Lane, OK sister. please esplane (Desi Arnez/Ricky Ricardo dialect) to us what a “heavily pregnant” woman? and if your “friend” (wink, wink) works for DHS, how are these cagy, savvy, heavily pregnant women getting through Customs? last time I checked there are no delivery rooms on the international concourse. if the mothers of these children are entering the U.S. legally, and the child is “born” (ezact word) in the U.S., the children are U.S. citizens (and I would hope mom secures a passport before re-patriating).

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:28 pm

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:29 pm

RW

And? Like I said, I’m not any too happy about all the Yankees down this way, but then I’m lunatic fringe on that issue. And don’t come in with that argument about one nation and all…after all, many of these so-called anchor babies are being born in Aztlan…

jt

October 20th, 2010
4:29 pm

1993——————————————

Partison sheep.

“Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 1351) that includes a provision that would limit citizenship to those whose mothers are United States citizens or legal permanent residents. However, Senator Reid’s proposal is to amend only the Immigration and Nationality Act, not the Constitution. Additionally, Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) is planning to propose an immigration reform package that will include a provision similar to that of Senator Reid’s. Whether or not Senator Simpson’s recommendation will limit the right to citizenship to only those whose mothers are citizens or legal residents remains to be s

"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010

October 20th, 2010
4:30 pm

Thank andygrd at 4:24. Well said.

Mr Bookman?… Crickets are chirping….

larry

October 20th, 2010
4:31 pm

Okay, now what if the native country of the mother does not recognize the child born on foreign soil as a citizen?

You mean my great, great, great, great, great grandfather was an anchor baby ?

Back to England i go ?

DebbieDoRight

October 20th, 2010
4:31 pm

On topic – No other country in the world works this way. Perhaps we need to change the 14th amendment….

You can’t change this ammendment. It states unequivically that “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.”

I’d love to see them try though and speaking of C. Thomas, I’d lOVE to see how he and Scalia wold vote if it made it all the way to the SC.

Gale

October 20th, 2010
4:31 pm

Much as I hate to disagree with you, josef, because I think you really know your history, but I agree with Night Train on this.
“However, I do not think kids born to people who are not in this country legally should be granted citizenship. They should carry the same status as their parents. If one of the parents is a citizen then the little one should be a citizen.”

If both parents are here illegally, the child should not be legal. Provide the tyke with a fast path to citizenship at age 18 if desired. Until then, the whole family is deported.

Bosch

October 20th, 2010
4:32 pm

Off topic, but I’d like to dedicate this to Christine O’Donnell:

http://www.lolcats.com/view/27355

RW-(the original)

October 20th, 2010
4:33 pm

josef,

I’m merely talking definitions here. If they weren’t considered citizens they wouldn’t provide the anchor for the family in the country therefore they would no longer be called anchor babies.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:33 pm

larry
Like I say, where’s the cut off date….?

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:35 pm

But alot of them do pay taxes like everyone else — they just don’t receive the benefits like everyone else (SS in this case)

But how can they pay taxes via a social security number and be illegal. That would be illegal.

jt

October 20th, 2010
4:35 pm

JoNix-

“Okay, now what if the native country of the mother does not recognize the child born on foreign soil as a citizen?”

He or She is a citizen of the world.
John Paul Jones got it right.

The rights of man.

"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010

October 20th, 2010
4:35 pm

Georgr Soros admitted today in The New York Times that he donating $1 million to Media Matters. Excuse me but Mr. Soros is an an American yet he is trying to influence our elections. Are Dems spinning in circles about $200,000 from the Chamber of Commerce?

How about opening up the donor lists for Media Matters, The Center For American Progress, MoveOn.org, The Tides Foundation and ACORN.

In addition, Mr. Soros is shelling out $1.6 million for “Enterprise Journalists” at NPR. What exactly is an “Enterprise Journalist” Mr. Bookman.? Is it in fact a hack who gets paid to pimp an agenda for the guy who signs the paychecks?

Again…. George Soros is not an American citizen. Where’s the outrage on the left?

"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010

October 20th, 2010
4:36 pm

typo…. Mr. Soros is not an American…….

J. Gravelle

October 20th, 2010
4:36 pm

The fix is simple: Repeal the 14th, then change the law so that anybody who gives birth in your house is automatically entitled to 1/3rd of your estate. The homeowner, in turn, is now liable for the expenses of their new family member. This would allow the proponents of spontaneous naturalization to put their dinero where their pie-holo is.

It’s no surprise that the GOP move to close the anchor baby loophole is protested most loudly by those who benefit the most from illegals:
http://gravelle.us/content/gop-closing-anchor-baby-loophole

What’s maddening is that it’s taken them so long to get AROUND to it:
http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2881

This is akin to replacing the broken lock and rusty hinges on an empty safe…

-jjg

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:37 pm

RW
Well, while we’re at it, let’s just interpret the 14th to refer to 3/5 citizenip, okay? This is not a shoulda issue.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:38 pm

RW

Ooops! Let’s make that citizenSHip! Don’t wanna bring Karamatsu vs the United States up here!

:-)

DebbieDoRight

October 20th, 2010
4:38 pm

“Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment” – BHO, May 1, 2010

You are STILL using this downright LIE and misinformed quote!?!?!! Even though you KNOW that is nothing more than a lie — that the quote was taken out of context? Are you really Limbaugh in disguise? Truth does not live in a republican mouth. Debbie 2010

United States President Barack Obama, during a speech today at Hampton University, criticized the use of gadgets like Apple’s iPad and iPod touch and called these devices a “distraction” and “diversion” for the nation , specially for the students. He further said in his speech, to the students of Hampton University, that information as entertainment is becoming more as a burden to the young minds rather than an empowerment tool.

He further said: You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter.

http://www.ithinkdiff.com/obama-calls-ipad-a-distraction-and-diversion_8934/

Jefferson

October 20th, 2010
4:39 pm

If you mind your own business, you won’t be minding mine.

AmVet

October 20th, 2010
4:40 pm

josef, you know I have no compunction about stating my firmly held beliefs and in this instance, I will reaffirm them.

Listen up neo-cons and judicial activist wannabes, regarding the United States Constitution, keep your filthy hands off of that sacred document.

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:40 pm

Y’all are aware, are you not, that American Indians didn’t get citizenship until 1924? Maybe they weren’t covered under the 14th either….

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:41 pm

md, please (PLEASE) do not invoke the “time machine” rule. and you know why? because I will tell you that if those responsible for the 14th Amendment needed a time machine or shaman to “predict” or “envision” the future, they should have summoned some American gumption (like Ben Franklin, who invented lots of stuff) and invented the time machine. you seem to forget that the reason we needed a 14th Amendment was ’cause the orginal document failed to “grant citizenship” (or any rights) to slaves. I return to my comments on CT’s blog; “property rights trump individual rights” – always have and always will. 14th Amendent “granted citizenship” to Americans who were until then “private property” (Dred Scott case). mirror, mirror. I do not understand your post. again, as I argued on CT’s blog, it is the employers who are not (deductiing and) paying taxes. while the ‘revenue’ sent to the Treasury Department originates (in part) from the employee’s income (wage), it it the empoyer’s responsibility to ‘do the math’ and send the check (quarterly, I beleive) to Uncle Sam, so he can provide food stamps, medical care and other services to these illegals.

Jay

October 20th, 2010
4:41 pm

Information, George Soros is a U.S. citizen and has been since 1961.

I propose a name change to “Information is a distortion, a fabrication….”

Jefferson

October 20th, 2010
4:41 pm

People will never be happy if they always worry about someone else getting a better deal than themselves, quite a childish approach to living your life. Be unhappy then.

"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010

October 20th, 2010
4:42 pm

Is DebbieDoRight an “Enterprise Journalist” on George Soros’s payroll? Maybe…….

Watch and learn my dear………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB0Paw-bNSg

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:43 pm

AmVet

And I daresay a certain relative of yours might have something to say about stripping of citizenship, too…

RW-(the original)

October 20th, 2010
4:44 pm

josef,

Getting pi$$ed off at me doesn’t really strengthen your position. You seem to be saying they can’t be called both US citizens and anchor babies and I’m saying the citizenship is WHY they are called anchor babies. If you’re trying to say that I’m somehow devaluing their personhood by using a term I most certainly didn’t invent you’re just wrong.

I haven’t even launched into my for or against argument ….. yet

:-)

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:44 pm

JAY

And I would imagine Soros might have an opinion on this particular issue it would behoove the rest of us to listen to, too…

josef nix

October 20th, 2010
4:46 pm

RW

That term anchor babies is an insult to our fellow citizens…emotional about it? D*mned right…and no, RW, I’m not pi33ed off at you…

Matti

October 20th, 2010
4:47 pm

Jefferson @ 4:41: You ROCK! BTW, your memorial in D.C. is my fave!

I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue. Here’s the more important issue, IMO: Regardless of place of birth, if you’re going to drive on THESE roads, then you must (a) learn how to bleeping drive, (b) learn the rules of our road and be able to read the signs, (c) maintain your “vehicle” to proper safety standards, and (d) have car insurance like the rest of us.

Safe roads! Let’s all get behind that.

"Information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" - BHO, May 1, 2010

October 20th, 2010
4:47 pm

Jay was right and I was wrong about Soro’s citizenship. He was indeed naturalized in 1961. I admit my error and stand corrected.

Ouch!

Hillbilly Deluxe

October 20th, 2010
4:49 pm

You can’t change this amendment.

Any amendment can be changed by passing another amendment. The chances of that happening on any issue are pretty remote but it is possible. (Prohibition is the only one I can think of, right off). That’s how the Framers set it up.

AmVet

October 20th, 2010
4:49 pm

“BTW, your memorial in D.C. is my fave!”

Ditto. A very special place among many very special places…

Scooter

October 20th, 2010
4:50 pm

You pro-illegal types make me wanna puke. A disgusting lot you are !

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:50 pm

larry, I recently (2005, when my grandma passed) learned I am 1/8th anchor baby. it’s true (and I’ve been paying taxes for the past 30 years or so, damn!). seems her father (my great grandfather was a stowaway, who entered America illegally). I confirmed this when I visited Ellis Island last year and could not find his name on any of the manifests of ships from the old country.

RW-(the original)

October 20th, 2010
4:50 pm

That term anchor babies is an insult to our fellow citizens

Is this where I’m supposed to restate the “insult”/citizen argument? Or as the song said, you can’t have one without the other.

:-)

/Gotta run out for a bit…catch y’all in an hour or so

DebbieDoRight

October 20th, 2010
4:50 pm

Gale: If both parents are here illegally, the child should not be legal. Provide the tyke with a fast path to citizenship at age 18 if desired. Until then, the whole family is deported.

Or constitution states otherwise. This particluar ammendment was made so that the slaves would automatically have their rights as citizens – without the interference from some states. Every other country does the same thing. I was born in Germany on Ramstein Airbase, I had dual citizenship because my parents made sure to register me that way, however once I turned 23, i chose to only keep my american citizenship. I think i can, since i was born in germany reapply through naturalization if I wanted to.

AmVet

October 20th, 2010
4:53 pm

josef, I contend that this is the very type of hyper-reactionary nonsense why we MOTs vote so overwhelmingly against the faux conservatives.

Mirror, Mirror

October 20th, 2010
4:53 pm

mirror, mirror. I do not understand your post. again, as I argued on CT’s blog, it is the employers who are not (deductiing and) paying taxes. while the ‘revenue’ sent to the Treasury Department originates (in part) from the employee’s income (wage), it it the empoyer’s responsibility to ‘do the math’ and send the check (quarterly, I beleive) to Uncle Sam, so he can provide food stamps, medical care and other services to these illegals.

The employer could simply be responsible for providing the illegal immigrant with a 1099 if said employer failed to terminate said contract worker prior to reaching the $600 annual threshold at which documentation of said payment to the IRS is required. That is just one possible scenario though.

paleo-neoCarlinist

October 20th, 2010
4:54 pm

AmVet, I agree with you in spirit (lower case s), but please remove the word “sacred” from your rant. I don’t want to confuse Christine O’Donnell (anymore than she already is) as far as the separation of church and state and the First Amendment. as I said, I’m cool with everything else (see my “time machine” reference).