All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Ending anchor babies

Republican Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana made his bid for House speaker now that Paul Ryan is punking out to become a millionaire lobbyist.

Scalise just proposed House Resolution 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would enforce the constitutional provision that citizenship applies only to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

That means the babies of illegal aliens no longer will be assumed to be citizens.

If a Mexican woman comes to the United States and has a baby, that baby would be a Mexican not an American.

"Scalise is opposed to giving amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants currently living in our country. He does not want to reward those who have committed a crime. Amnesty programs will only encourage more illegal aliens to cross our borders and drain our nation's resources. In 1986, the federal government granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, and millions more illegal immigrants have crossed our borders since. Amnesty failed then, and it will fail now," Scalise said in a press release.

Here is what the Constitution says, "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."

AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The Constitution never meant for the babies of foreigners to attain instant citizenship. Indeed, American babies born overseas are considered American because you go by who the parents are, not where the baby is.

UPDATE: Usually. There are rules even on this.

36 comments:

  1. “ because you go by who the parents are, not where the baby is.”

    Might want to clue in the birthers and their orange hero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, bless your heart!

      You mean to say Obama’s Kenyan?

      Glad to see that’s cleared up.

      Delete
    2. Dave done brung a SMILE to mah face.

      Delete
    3. I want to see Obama's adoption paperwork. He was adopted by Leo Soetoro so there should have been a new birth certificate issued with his adopted name, Barry Soetoro. Did he ever legally change his name back to Obama?

      Which brings up his college transcripts. Why are they sealed?

      Delete
    4. Did Barry apply for admission as a foreign student, perhaps to be eligible for a scholarship or to get acceptance in a quota category?

      Delete
    5. What was the name used on the passport he used to go to Pakistan? Was it a US passport? I've read that there was an embargo on US persons going to Pakistan at the time unless they had special permission. (I accept Obama was born in Hawaii, but I have many other questions about his cloudy, obscured early life.)

      Delete
    6. According to the U.S. Constitution, both parents have to U.S. citizens in order for a child to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, and thereby eligible to be president. Otherwise, the child is merely a Native Born Citizen. As such, Donald Trump is a Natural Born Citizen, but his two older sister are not. And neither is Barack Obama.

      Delete
    7. I'd still like to have a look at his birth certificate, since the only one I've been able to look at is a badly-done photoshop.

      That might be enough for CNN, but I'd like to see the real thing instead of the #FakeNews version!

      Delete
    8. AnonymousApril 12, 2018 at 3:36 PM
      According to the U.S. Constitution, both parents have to U.S. citizens in order for a child to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, and thereby eligible to be president.


      Cite please? I have always believed this but no one has been able to show me the text. The closest thing I've been shown is a cite within United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

      In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

      Delete
  2. The language may seem a bit dated but the Constitution is clear on this point. How did it get so twisted that it needs to be reaffirmed by a Congressional Resolution? Also, will it revoke the citizenship retroactively of those who wrongly claimed and/or were granted citizenship? - Elric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is my firm belief that, if the Founding Fathers were granted one single hour back on Earth, they would spend it kicking asses up and down the lengths of the corridors of Congress.

      Delete
    2. Can't make an ex post facto law,
      so... NO.

      Delete
    3. How could enforcing a law as originally written, but then was twisted to seem to mean something different for a time, be called an ex post facto law? It woul be status quo ante. - Elric

      Delete
    4. Elric, because I believe it was a Supreme Court ruling.

      Delete
    5. Can you tell me which one? Seriously, I'm curious. If it is in contradiction of the Constitution and Amendments as written, wouldn't it require a Constitutional Amendmemt? - Elric

      Delete
  3. In the discussion leading up to the adoption of the 14th Amendment the author was asked if it wouldn't grant citizenship to every baby born here. He replied that this amendment applied ONLY to the children of freed slaves.

    Just like Ted Kennedy assured us that increasing immigration wouldn't change the demographics of the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! My take too.

      (And may Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy roast in Hell forever.)

      Delete
  4. I support Scalise for Speaker. Because every single fucking day that he wields the gavel, the Demmies will writhe in pain knowing that it was one of their guys who almost murdered him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're giving the Dems MORE than undeserved credit for integrity.

      Delete
    2. No, they'll write in regret of Hodgkinson's bad aim.

      Delete
  5. But babies aren't humans! Hey -- if fetus aren't humans, why decide that babies are? Why not wait until they are at least 1, so that for the first year, the mother has the right to kill the unit? I believe that's the way it works in England, and don't we want to be like those Europeans?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's hard to discern the point of these words. The best I can come up with is that you believe it is a horror to be born Mexican. That seems pretty prejudiced.
      JimNorCal

      Delete
  6. An illegal alien commits a crime by entering the country illegally. Once they do that they are no longer "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they are living outside the law; i.e. they are outlaws. If they have children those children are born to outlaws and are not citizens.

    That's my take anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This week the 14th Amendment.
    Next week the 15th.
    In due course, the 1st and 13th.

    Get out of the Republican Party, you don't belong here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, what Mueller did to the 4th and 5th this week couldn't be worse.

      Delete
    2. So what scam site are you going to send all those emails you get too.

      Delete
    3. Lawyers are trained to argue either side of a case; that doesn't mean you always have to work against the author, the history, and the intent of a law. That just indicates that your brain isn't switched on, or has been warped. Socialism will do that.

      The 14th Amend. was intended to ensure that children of the now-freed slaves could vote; it was necessary, because Democrats- who were smarting at losing their slaves after the Civil War, which they also lost- were putting obstacles in their way. (They were also terrified of ex-slaves having guns, which is their 2nd Amendment right, but that's another story.)

      The 14th A. was never intended to grant citizenship to babies of citizens from other countries who were visiting.

      As for the 1st Amendment- your fellow Democrats have pretty well demolished that already, haven't they? Be careful how you answer, people nowadays lose their jobs & livelihood by exercising their "freedom" of speech. In some countries (not yet here, thank God!) people have gone to jail for a tweet or a comment on Fakebook!

      Delete
  8. Citizenship is not automatically passed to children of American citizens born abroad. There are requirements that have to be met (i.e. lived in the US or served in the military overseas for 5 years AFTER turning 18), and lots of paperwork to be filled out at the local consulate or embassy. I am speaking from personal experience.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve Scalise is exactly who the Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party fear. I fear not having Scalise or someone like him as Speaker.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude the children born of foreign diplomats who were posted to the US, but nothing more than that. Illegals who enter the country are subject to the jurisdiction of the US because they can be arrested and imprisoned for crimes; foreign diplomats posted in the US cannot (or rather, are not unless their country waives immunity).

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The Constitution never meant for the babies of foreigners to attain instant citizenship."

    Prior to the passage of the 14thA the Constitution was silent on this matter. As a matter of fact, when the Constitution was ratified, many if not most of the adults living in the country were foreigners: they were British citizens! I think it is fairer to say that given the sparseness of the population at the time (the latter part of the 18th C), it was not a matter of great concern to the Founding Fathers. The 14thA, on the other hand, was clearly intended to ensure the South treated former slaves and their offspring as citizens of the United States with all the civil rights that entailed. It was not adopted for the express purpose of conveying automatic citizenship to the children born to immigrants, legal or illegal. The 14th was not the "Ollie Ollie In Come Free" rule it seems to have become.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's no longer just people from Mexico and Central America any more. "Birthing" in the US has become very popular with Chinese women.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just pass it. Birth tourism from China will stop too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Does California think it's "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when it comes to immigration law? Um, NO. Not today. Anchor babies born in California after effective date of the Sanctuary status seem to have lost the "anchor," according to the Constitution. So no more automatic citizenship for them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "AND 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'

    "The Constitution never meant for the babies of foreigners to attain instant citizenship. Indeed, American babies born overseas are considered American because you go by who the parents are, not where the baby is."

    This is completely backwards.

    A foreigner in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. Natural born status has a real meaning going back centuries and steeped in the common law. It was based on Jus Soli and simply required that a child was born in the country, that the part of the country the child was born in was under the control of the sovereign/state, and the parents had allegiance to the state... the later of which was not required by the 14th Amendment.

    Natural born status by just sanguinis could be expanded legislatively to children born abroad, as it does now.

    ReplyDelete