Loading...

Steve's Rants - 1 - Are Anchor Babies US Citizens?

3,582 views

Loading...

Loading...

Transcript

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jan 22, 2016

This issue of birthright citizenship, otherwise known as anchor babies, has troubled me. This is when a person is in this country illegally and has a baby... that baby is a US citizen because it was born in this country.

This issue supposedly originates in the US Constitution’s 14th amendment which states in part

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and The State wherein they reside.”

The word “and” in this amendment is very important: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .” Two conditions have to exist before you are a US Citizen.

“Subject to the Jurisdiction” generally means that a person, in this case a parent, has allegiance to the United States and no other country. Boiled down, this limits it to the parents who are United States Citizens. Their children will be US citizens.

The 14th amendment was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen.

A person intentionally violates US law to give lawful citizenship to their child, and then have education medical and welfare for life is absurd.

It seems that most people agree birth right citizenship is a done deal, even Judge Napolitano surprisingly. I found only one supreme court case, about birthright citizenship, titled United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This case deals with a couple here lawfully. This case, which relied on the 14th amendment, concluded that a child, now 21 years old, of aliens lawfully domiciled here, was a US citizen. This case was not a unanimous decision among the judges. This also does not appear to cover those here illegally.

When there is a question about the intent of a law, one should look to the intent of the author. This is something the Supreme Court did not do in this case.

Senator Jacob Howard who authored the 14th amendment said this in 1866 about “and subject to the jurisdiction”:

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

This makes it clear to me that the 14th amendment was never intended to grant birth right citizenship for lawful aliens or illegal aliens.

US Constitution Article 1, section 8 clause 4 gives congress and congress alone the power to grant citizenship.

Congress, for example, still exempt Ambassadors birth citizenship. So I believe birthright citizenship of aliens can be changed by congress anytime.

Citizenship that has been granted cannot be undone, but changes can be made for the future.

I believe it is time for the congress and the courts to revisit this issue.

I am Steve Hempfling and this is one of my rants.

Loading...

When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...