America needs a NEW Constitutional Amendment!

No More Anchor Babies

Published on June 27, 2007 By Moderateman In US Domestic

Anchor babies have long been a sneaky way for Illegal Aliens to break the law by coming across the border Pregnant and give birth in America so the baby become a citizen taking advantage of the fourteenth Amendment.

It shows their contempt for America and her laws by taking advantage, having a BABY WHICH AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A CITIZEN, and allows the Illegals to stay so we do not break the family up.

ENOUGH I SAY! We need to Amend the fourteenth Amendment and stop giving Citizenship to babies of illegal Aliens, forcing them to leave, this madness must stop. Put this to a vote to the American People. Let the people decide if we want this archaic law to continue. The law was written after the Dredd Scott decision, making sure that slaves born in America were citizens of the country, it has outlived its usefulness.

I for one would vote that we ban this law and send the entire family back to where they came from no matter when it is.

Enough of these escape clauses for Illegal aliens to take advantage of. Enough of fair play, for they do not play fair. they lie, cheat, SOME STEAL and still they get to reap the benefits of American citizenship while not being citizens! Enough is enough already! it is time to stand up and say if you are not going to come to America Legally, you will be deported, if you get caught a second time you will be sent to prison, then deported. To many Illegals are using this Amendment to weasel their way into America to stay, and they are taught how to use this by the Mexican Government to top it off.

Comments (Page 2)

Moderateman

on Jun 27, 2007

(Citizen)JythierJune 27, 2007 16:47:26

Well, yeah, but.. why? Change is good as long as it doesn't affect me. The original constitution is so old and musty. They could not have predicted that everyone in Mexico would want to have their babies in the US just so they could stay. Back then, they couldn't even travel that far without forgetting where they lived!

agreed. But the 14th Amendment was written to Protect SLAVES and it was a damned good amendment for then, but the fathers of the country left open the idea things could or would change hence the Amendments.

Dr Guy

on Jun 27, 2007

Although you left this in another article, what you say fits right in here doc g good work,. Great definition of what I wrote, I put it simply enough "amend the 14th amendment" but some choose to read what is not there, good work putting it in SIMPLE terms.

I read your article (obviously), but had not really formulated a response, as I think that an amendment to the constitution is a very serious thing and used too often for frivolous reasons (the ERA comes to mind). I am not sure that I would want to change it in this situation, as I have not thought through all the ramifications as of yet

Dr Guy

on Jun 27, 2007

Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof",

That phrase has nothing to do with "being lawful", but was put in there to include the parts of the country (at the time) that were not states, but territories of the states (Ohio being one as it was a part of Virginia).

Thus that is of no help. The phrase was being used to declare that residents of Ohio were citizens by virtue of being ruled by Virginia law.

Jythier

on Jun 27, 2007

They made an Amendment regarding baseball statistics?

Jythier

on Jun 27, 2007

Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are on US soil. As are their babies. In hand jurisdiction, I believe it's called.

Dr Guy

on Jun 27, 2007

They made an Amendment regarding baseball statistics?

100 years before the game was invented! See how far sighted they were?

ParaTed2k

on Jun 27, 2007

Dr. Guy:

That would make sense, and probably is part of it, but to see the full meaning you have to look back to who wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Indians weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their tribes.

Slaves weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their owners.

Endentured servants weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their "sponsors" until their debt was worked off.

Those who fell behind in their debts weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of those they owed money too.

With few exceptions, women weren't, they were subject to the jurisdiction of their fathers and husbands.

On the other hand, diplomats, soldiers, and other government sponsored travellers were "subject to the jurisdiction" in any nation that recognized the U.S.

It did matter where you lived, but what mattered even more is that you were a free person. Those who weren't had few "rights" other than what was granted them by those whose jurisdiction they were subject to.

Dr Guy

on Jun 27, 2007

It did matter where you lived, but what mattered even more is that you were a free person. Those who weren't had few "rights" other than what was granted them by those whose jurisdiction they were subject to.

All that is true. However, I think you are not going to find a court that agrees with you as the context it is written in clearly is indicating where (other places mentioned who).

Moderateman

on Jun 27, 2007

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Although you left this in another article, what you say fits right in here doc g good work,. Great definition of what I wrote, I put it simply enough "amend the 14th amendment" but some choose to read what is not there, good work putting it in SIMPLE terms.

I read your article (obviously), but had not really formulated a response, as I think that an amendment to the constitution is a very serious thing and used too often for frivolous reasons (the ERA comes to mind). I am not sure that I would want to change it in this situation, as I have not thought through all the ramifications as of yet

I dunno doc 27 I think Amendments in 225 or so years ain't playing fast and lose.

I believe we need this new Amendment to stop the country from being taken over by folks that have an allegiance to another country, shown by the waving of the other countries flag at rallies to demand American citizenship. Please!

Moderateman

on Jun 28, 2007

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Dr. Guy:
That phrase has nothing to do with "being lawful", but was put in there to include the parts of the country (at the time) that were not states, but territories of the states (Ohio being one as it was a part of Virginia).

Thus that is of no help. The phrase was being used to declare that residents of Ohio were citizens by virtue of being ruled by Virginia law.

That would make sense, and probably is part of it, but to see the full meaning you have to look back to who wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Indians weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their tribes.

Slaves weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their owners.

Endentured servants weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their "sponsors" until their debt was worked off.

Those who fell behind in their debts weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of those they owed money too.

With few exceptions, women weren't, they were subject to the jurisdiction of their fathers and husbands.

On the other hand, diplomats, soldiers, and other government sponsored travellers were "subject to the jurisdiction" in any nation that recognized the U.S.

It did matter where you lived, but what mattered even more is that you were a free person. Those who weren't had few "rights" other than what was granted them by those whose jurisdiction they were subject to.

Boy do you know your history or what? good points ted, and thank you for the contribution to my article.

Moderateman

on Jun 28, 2007

Reply By: JythierPosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are on US soil. As are their babies. In hand jurisdiction, I believe it's called.

Yes but the whole point of this is: THEY SHOULD NOT BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

danielost

on Jun 28, 2007

It shows their contempt for America and her laws by taking advantage

it also shows how disperate they are

than I have sleeping in your mayor's office.

you have my permission

THEY SHOULD NOT BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE

this is true also

danielost

on Jun 28, 2007

maybe what we should do is do what we do with war babies.

deport the child with his/her mother and when he/she turns 18 then she can choose to return to the USA

Jythier

on Jun 28, 2007

"deport the child with his/her mother and when he/she turns 18 then she can choose to return to the USA "

I wish I'd thought of something like that.

Moderateman

on Jun 28, 2007

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, June 28, 2007

maybe what we should do is do what we do with war babies.

deport the child with his/her mother and when he/she turns 18 then she can choose to return to the USA

Nope, They do not let criminals make profit from their crimes when caught, for instance a criminal behind bars cannot write a book about his crime and make money. An Illegal alien is a lawbreaker, why should the child be allowed to be an American just because it was born here when it started with the parents breaking the law in the first place?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!