Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Think We Need to Get Illegal Immigration Under Control

[b]ANCHOR BABIES...[/b]
There is a controversy at present over the proposal by President Trump to clarify the citizenship status of babies born to those who are illegally here in the United States. Some say that his proposal to deny them automatic citizenship is against the first section of the 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Let us examine this assertion.

The first section of the amendment reads: "Section 1. 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. "

To those unversed in the law, and unfamiliar with the intention of those who framed the amendment this may seem to automatically grant citizenship to any person born within the United States. These people seem to ignore or misunderstand the second clause of the first sentence, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What does this clause mean? Does it refer to the geographic territory of the United States, or does it mean something quite different? On the other hand, does it refer to people who are subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States?

If it refers to the geographic territory of the United States, then a child born outside the territory of the United States would not be a citizen of the United States. Yet, a child born to parents who are citizens of the United States in a foreign country is legally considered a natural citizen of the United States, witness the late John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, legally part of Panamanian territory, yet, as a natural born U. S. citizen was able to run for President. This is because his parents were United States citizens, and subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States. This principle is also why a United States citizen who is living in a foreign country is still subject to U. S. tax laws and must pay U. S. income tax.

People who are living in the United States illegally are in contravention to the legal jurisdiction of the United States. The question then is, is a child born to such people a natural citizen of the United States, or a citizen of the country of the parents' nationality? Contrary to what some believe, this question has never been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. President Trump is interpreting the amendment as the second clause of the first section meaning legal jurisdiction, and therefore such a child does not have automatic United States citizenship. Legally he may well be right. Those who decry him as trying to defy the Constitution by executive order show their ignorance of the complexities of the matter, which must now ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court when this matter is brought before them, which it most certainly will.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Allelse · 36-40, M
@Greenbare Hahaha! Oh they were citizens were they?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ChampagneOnIce · 51-55, F
While I cannot stand Trump nor anything he stands for, I can understand your point of view and see its merits. However, those living here are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they can be held accountable for violating any laws of the United States. I am a nationalized citizen having immigrated here legally years ago. I can’t fault those looking for a better life and the promise of the American dream. Those fleeing persecution, war, destruction, etc. should have a path to asylum and citizenship. Our country was founded by immigrants, built by immigrants, and we have been seen as the land of opportunity. “Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” We should not forget that heritage nor that beacon. Yes, we need better immigration laws and procedures, but locking people up in detention centers and violating human rights is not who we should be as a nation. Revoking citizenship status from those who have been granted it legally doesn’t seem like the best path forward either (especially from those who are serving or want to serve in the military). I know your post was specifically about those here illegally and whether or not their children born here should be citizens, but the issue of immigration and citizenship is much bigger than this one particular point.
I just dont like when these preggos waddle here and lay their eggs and think all is right and that they made it to the ✳️[c=#1F5E00][b]Emerald City[/b][/c]. ✳️
JarJarBoom · 41-45, F
But what if one of the parents is illegal citizen and one of the parents is legal??
aradia11 · 61-69, F
I don't believe Anchor Babies should be allowed. This is just taking advantage.
We have children here whom need care and can't get it.
Our system is being drained and has been for years. I agree some control is needed. Although situations can be taken care of in a humain way.
@aradia11 =]Not our responsibility to care for any kids that the mother has. They shit out the kid - they care for the kid. Dont want kids wear a condom dummy.
@aradia11 [image deleted]
SW-User
I think we need to get white nationalist terrorists under control*
CountScrofula · 41-45, M
@SW-User Nonsense, who have they ever hurt? It's these babies that are the real problem.
SW-User
@CountScrofula those babies are actually 28 year old muslim rapists disguised as hungry poverty stricken babies. The liberal media has got them all fooled!
I wonder if a forigen woman comes her and craps out a kid in Washington DC - DC is a district not a state actually.
Thank you for the explanation too bad people walk around with blinders on and will never care about the real legal description. So tell me ------all of these anchor babies that were born here are they US Citizens ? and will they have their Citizenship revoked.
@pagandad Well considered to be - does not mean fact - It should not matter before the ruling because the ruling is based on the law - nothing has changed and there were no amendments to the const.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@pagandad Yea - I suppose -- the good news is that Trump has not been bamboozled - and the Proverbial JIG IS UP
SlaveEt · 36-40, F
Nicely said. I hope the Supreme Court hears this case soon and I have my fingers crossed that they decide children of those here illegally are citizens of their parents' home country and should be deported with their parents.
JarJarBoom · 41-45, F
What if the woman was from guam.and the father is puerto rican but they live in alaska??
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
JarJarBoom · 41-45, F
@pagandad so what if the person from guam had a baby with someone that is a resident of canada??
Allelse · 36-40, M
so you want to kill babies now?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Allelse · 36-40, M
@pagandad I'm sure it is. Basically that orange skinned piece of shit wants to kill babies now, or atleast put them in cages. same thing.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F
[image deleted]
SlaveEt · 36-40, F
@SevIsPamprinYouAlways
Lol how can anyone stop a fictional character?

 
Post Comment