Anchor Babies And The 14th Amendment - And Response (3)

  • Wednesday, August 26, 2015

First of all, lets set the record straight.  The Supreme Court has never, never ruled or granted citizenship to children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens- period.  The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868, and did not address the issue of illegal immigrants at all because at that time there were no illegal immigrants, and the issue of violation of the law was non-existent.

 However in 1866 U.S. Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment as being "those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."  The case law used by the proponents of "Birthright Citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies" comes from Wong Kim ARK 1898. The US Supreme Court in that case did determine that the allegiance for illegal immigrant parents is based on the words "legal domicile".  

Since these parents do not have "legal domicile" in the U.S., therefore neither do their children, and conclusively they are therefore also not under the "jurisdiction" of the United States- the very word (jurisdiction) that is misinterpreted by the proponents of "birthright citizenship" for these so called "Anchor Babies".

 To further enlighten the left leaning proponents of these children to be granted automatic U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil, the term "Anchor Babies" was not invented by the "Right".  It comes from the 1965 Immigration Act which states that: "they (anchor babies) act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and a host of other relatives into permanent residency in the United States".  And further more by federal law, these babies born here by illegals must wait until they are over 21 to sponsor parents or foreign relatives for admission to the United States.  

The Supreme Court has determined that the status of the parents determines the status of the child.  In 1920 the U.S. Congress excluded American Indians by virtue of their "allegiance" to their own tribes, and it wasn't until 1923 that the law was changed that reversed that declaration, and granted U.S. citizenship to members of United States American Indian tribes.  Please note that it wasn't automatic "birthright citizenship" but required legislative action of our U.S. Congress.  Something that has not as yet ever been passed by Congress to include "Anchor Babies", nor for that matter, as I have said, has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled on this issue.

As a matter of fact, the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 clearly gives Congress, not the courts, absolute power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.  To say that this issue of automatic U.S. citizenship to these "Anchor Babies" is settled law, is totally incorrect, misleading and defies logic by those that would try to fool the people.  

If you want to increase the ranks of the Democrat party, I would suggest that you do it by persuasion, not by twisting our Constitution to achieve your goals.

Bill Reesor
Ooltewah 

* * *

This is the first really accurate thing I have seen on this issue. Congress should immediately pass clarifying legislation. 

John Odom 

* * * 

Thank you for publishing this simple and clear explanation.  I had just heard the same information on the radio, and was happy to see it all in print. 

The comment following that letter stated, "This is the first really accurate thing I have seen on this issue.  Congress should immediately pass clarifying legislation." 

Now, surely, that is not at all what needs to be done.  There is already plenty of legislation in effect on that and related subjects; do we really need more laws? 

The country has a superabundance of laws on every conceivable topic, and more laws on inconceivable topics.  (In case you're wondering, superabundance means "oversupply, surfeit, glut, too much, more than enough," etc.) 

An oversupply of laws is just one obvious and ugly problem; its equally obvious and ugly twin is, even the best and most necessary of laws are not uniformly enforced by those we pay to enforce them. 

So, please, don't ask for more laws.  Instead, ask, insist, demand that the righteous laws we already have be enforced for the protection of the legitimate citizens of the U.S. of A. 

It wouldn't hurt for every congressman and every senator to publish a formal statement containing the same information originally presented above, and his/her promise to see the laws enforced. 

That would be a start to restoring this country to its proper condition. 

But don't hold your breath.  For reasons of their own, our leaders seem to prefer uncertainty and unrest over national peace and prosperity. 

Larry Cloud
Chattanooga

* * *

The information provided by Mr. Reesor is misleading, at best.
 
While SCOTUS may not have specifically addressed the citizenship of those children born here of illegal aliens, it has held that the 14th Amendment applies to the children of illegal. 

In Pliley v. Doe, SCOTUS stated that the "[u]se of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction' thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction—either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States—he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws."

In that ruling, the Court quoted the same Senator Howard as stating that “[t]he last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another.... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction.”
 
In that same ruling, the Court went on to say that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425–427 (1912)."
 
In other words, SCOTUS has clearly established that "anchor babies" and their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Kevin Hargis
Chattanooga

Latest Headlines
Opinion
Democratic View On Top State Senate Issues - March 18, 2024
  • 3/18/2024

Campbell bill seeks to save lives by studying suicide trends in Tennessee 3 p.m. Senate Regular Calendar — SB 1787 , by Sen. Heidi Campbell, would require state health officials to produce ... more

The Odor Of Mendacity - And Response (2)
  • 3/16/2024

The Fulton County judge, Scott McAfee, overseeing the Fani Willis prosecution of Donald Trump and eighteen other defendants has spoken. In response to a motion by defendants to remove Willis ... more

Capitol Report From State Rep. Greg Vital For March 15
  • 3/15/2024

General Assembly confirms new Tennessee State Supreme Justice Members of the General Assembly confirmed the appointment of Mary L. Wagner to the Tennessee Supreme Court in a joint session ... more