XPost: alt.home.repair   
   From: T@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 1/21/25 2:41 PM, Snag wrote:   
   > The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads 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."   
   >   
   > Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called   
   > anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an   
   > anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of   
   > other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is   
   > another term).   
   >   
   > Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The   
   > 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born   
   > Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed   
   > slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments   
   > from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But   
   > in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the   
   > authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the   
   > amendment.   
   >   
   > Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and   
   > passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,   
   > which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on   
   > Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United   
   > States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out   
   > the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:   
   >   
   > Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to   
   > their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a   
   > citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons   
   > born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all   
   > doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.   
   > This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and   
   > legislation of this country."   
   >   
   > The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude   
   > American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the   
   > United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully   
   > in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on   
   > the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United   
   > States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.   
   >   
   > The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal   
   > alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is   
   > her baby.   
   >   
   > Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this   
   > restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-   
   > House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk   
   > v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its   
   > operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign   
   > states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian   
   > claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required   
   > him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the   
   > jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their   
   > political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'   
   >   
   > Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to   
   > American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born   
   > within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924,   
   > codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:   
   >   
   > The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at   
   > birth:   
   > (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction   
   > thereof;   
   > (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo,   
   > Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.   
   >   
   > The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate   
   > illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their   
   > offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates   
   > indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the   
   > U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S.   
   > population each year than immigration from all sources in an average   
   > year before 1965.   
   >   
   > On the issue of anchor babies, they will not be stateless as claimed in   
   > the suit. They are already citizens of whatever nation their parents are   
   > citizens of.   
   >   
   > Will they be deportable as claimed in the suit? Yes, if they have not   
   > secured citizenship or permanent residency.   
   >   
   > Will they lose access to welfare and free healthcare that is tied to   
   > citizenship? Yes in most cases.   
   >   
   > Has the United States recognized anchor babies as citizens of the USA   
   > for 150 years?   
   >   
      
      
   And I might add, there is precedent for what Trump   
   is doing.   
      
   NOT ONE SINGLE FOREIGN DIPLOMAT WHO HAS HAD THEIR   
   CHILD BORN IN AMERICA HAS BEEN GRANTED CITIZENSHIP.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)