Anchor Babies and where the R candidates stand

[De Selby]

No need for an amendment.  A law passed by Congress and signed by POTUS is sufficient.

Who would have thought that the post-Civil War Amendments were enacted to deal with the particular circumstances pertaining to that war? 

Hell, the way American Indians finally gained citizenship clearly demonstrates:
1. 14th applied only to former slaves.
2. That it can be remedied by the usual law-making process.

Indians had nothing to do with it - they retained and still do retain some status as foreign sovereigns, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of he United States.

The civil rights act of 1866 was meant to abolish all racial prejudice.  It's language was clear and birthright citizenship for all was clearly anticipated.

[TommyGunn]

.......The civil rights act of 1866 was meant to abolish all racial prejudice.  ........

Someone actually thought a human-made law could accomplish that??

[dogmush]

Someone actually thought a human-made law could accomplish that??

Lawyer hubris is not a new thing.


It's worth pointing out that while this is a neat discussion, in the actual world, it'd take a Constitutional  Ammendment or a USSC ruling to end birthright citizenship. You guys know as well as I do that were Congress to just pass a law, the SJW's  would have that thing in front of a shopped for Federal Judge for an injection before the CINC's signature was dry. It's only judicial activism if it's for the wrong side.

[Hawkmoon]

And I don't think it needs a USSC decision, simply a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.

But the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land. A law passed by the Congress cannot override a provision of the Constitution. Like it or not, the 14th says what it says -- anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.

Period.

No mention of anchor babies, or anchored parents. As has been proposed, deport the illegal parents, and they can choose to either leave the kid here for adoption, or take the kid back to their native country and he/she can come back -- alone -- when he/she grows up.

[RevDisk]

It's worth pointing out that while this is a neat discussion, in the actual world, it'd take a Constitutional  Ammendment or a USSC ruling to end birthright citizenship. You guys know as well as I do that were Congress to just pass a law, the SJW's  would have that thing in front of a shopped for Federal Judge for an injection before the CINC's signature was dry. It's only judicial activism if it's for the wrong side.

Uhm, yay? If you're stripping people of their citizenship, it bloody well should have the bar set very highly. Same with voting or any other fundamental right. Then again, I'm the kind of nutter that things the 2A means what it says as says. Even felons are not stripped of citizenship.

And Hawkmoon is correct. Congress doesn't, can't and shouldn't trump the Constitution. Just like an AR-15 didn't exist in the age of muskets, it doesn't change diddly. Anchor babies are to the Right is what EBRs are to the Left.

I wasn't just being polite when I said to TommyGunn that I agree that the situation is more nuanced than "the Constitution means what it says", but at the end of the day, American citizenship is the highest right in the world and should be given the highest protection under the law. The government should have a staggeringly overwhelming burden to strip or deny citizenship. This has already been established in court cases regarding dual citizenship. The courts basically found that unless a person renounces their citizenship, it's virtually impossible to strip them of citizenship. That said, we tax American citizens no matter where they live in the world. Accidental dual citizenship get very expensive in a hurry when you have to pay double taxes.

That said, any illegal immigrant parents of an anchor baby are given no such protection and they should not be given any such protection. Either the kid goes with the parent when they are deported, or they are given up for adoption. Violating a laundry list of federal and state felonies should be punished. Obviously, the kid committed none of them and deserves no punitive action. If a kid is born on a vacation or other legal visit to the US, uhm, pretty much the same minus the felonies. "Congrads, your kid has dual citizenship" is about it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You mean the donald can't just write a check?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dogmush]

Rev, you and I agree I think. I also think it's pretty plain.

The article in the OP, and several folks on this thread have said that "All that needs to happen is for Congress to pass a Law". I was pointing out that even if I were wrong, that was probably a pipe dream.