Comments on: Dispelling “Anchor Baby” Myths

By: mtracer

mtracer — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:24:04 +0000

I want to thank you for an informative and entertaining article. I have used this as background information on my own blog post and offered attribution. You can view it at http://www.madisontracer.com Thank you!

By: aportagee

aportagee — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:07:01 +0000

The idea that the 14th Amendment needs to be changed is wrong. The original intent of the amendment was not to confer citizenship to children born here whose parents were not citizens. Period.
Somehow, we’ve distorted the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” from the very clear original intent.
All you need to do is read the words of the actual author of the citizenship clause Senator Howard of Michigan, during debates on the amendment, to understand how that phrase was intended to be interpreted.
Here’s a portion of one of his speeches:

“This will not of course include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors….”

There can be no misinterpretation of his words, but somehow there has been. His intent has been warped through time and we now have a situation where millions of children are receiving citizenship when they shouldn’t.

The only thing that’s needed is some clarification. Not change.

By: allthingsinaname

allthingsinaname — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:33:01 +0000

“According to the Pew report, 340,000 babies were born in the U.S. in 2008 to at least one undocumented parent”
.
So how many have one parent here legally, or perhaps a US citizen?
.
What these nut cases are asking is that when a person is born in the US at least one parent will have to register as a US citizen. have papers, etc. then that documentation will have follow that child for the rest if his life, and then to his children, etc..
.
But what the heck the just want the government out of their lives.

By: golinus

golinus — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:45:52 +0000

Wouldn’t it be nice if for once Fox News corrected the misinformation provided to its viewers by Lindsay Graham’s comments? No way they’d correct that. Their goal is to misinform, and to twist the truth. Can’t believe so many people naively watch that cable news and go out and spread the misinformation. The main oroblem with republicans and tea parties is their desire for “ethnic cleansing” of hispanics in this country.

By: kryptik1

kryptik1 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:50:25 +0000

Just a wee question there: You say “Mexican women” with kids that you see in Wal Mart. Just a small quibble with that: how do you know that they aren’t citizens already? Why does, through the context of your post, the assumption run that they MUST be illegal Mexican immigrants wanting freebies? And even then, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. Stats can be manipulated, but so can anecdotes, and emotional manipulation in these cases tends to be a lot more pernicious. Oh…and I say this as a Filipino-American who ‘gets it’, entirely more than those who think shucking the 14th is an absolute necessity to avoid letting ‘THEM’ in.

By: heloise8

heloise8 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:00:42 +0000

Statistics lie more than journalists. I don’t believe these numbers for a second.

Just take a walk through Wal Mart. I see Mexican women who have aged beyond their years with no less than 4-5 kids all under the ages of 10. I know, I count them. I believe my eyes before I believe the low numbers (yet sig #) of this study.

Citizenship? Hell no, they are not coming here for that. They are coming here for the freebies that go with coming here in the first place. We value citizenship, they don’t. And only Americans seem to get this.

I have been calling for looking at the 14th amendment for years. Finally somebody heard it. And I am not alone.

Heloise

By: terryheidel

terryheidel — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 07:04:23 +0000

My take: we can feel sorry for Mexicans for being born in a vastly corrupt country with rampant poverty and little economic future, and we can feel sorry for the millions (billions?) in other countries of the world born in similar or worse conditions than are the Mexicans, but in NONE of these cases should we feel obligated to give any of these people (or their children) U.S. citizenship.

There are things we can use to try to help them: foreign aid, political diplomacy, private charity and private voluntary assistance. These aids are not magic and will not keep all Mexicans or all other nationalities from seeking to come to the U.S. to have children, and thus to seek to gain from the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, without really buying into the things the U.S. stands for, including respect for the law.

We should NOT feel obligated to help any of these people by granting them (or their children) U.S. citizenship that is not earned by going through the legal process of naturalization.

Here is an example of abuse of the 14th amendment:

Chinese consultants sell US ‘birth tourism’ to expectant mothers

http://arabnews.com/world/article86859.ece

I rarely agree with the crazed hypocritical Republicans on any issue, and they might not be bringing up this issue sincerely and in good faith, but the issue stands as one in dire need of fixing, nonetheless. If it takes a constitutional amendment, let’s get on with it!

By: afraidofheights

afraidofheights — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:43:48 +0000

Lindsey Graham and the Republicans are seeking to repeal and replace the 14th Amendment. According to House Minority Leader, John Boehner, they want to replace it with a 28th Amendment that is twice as strong. They claim that the Democrats slipped the 14th Amendment through as part of the $15,000 Buggy Bailout Bill of 1866 therefore it should not be valid anyhow. Read this article. VERY FUNNY. http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2508

By: allthingsinaname

allthingsinaname — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:24:59 +0000

“Or does it have more to do with what’s reflected in a CNN poll out today showing that 49% of Americans support revoking the automatic citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment?”
.
It takes 2/3rds of the States to ratify a change .49% of the population is going to do it.
.
The thing I hate about politicians is how they will inflame an issue for their own gain. These people do not deserve the positions they hold. I am disgusted with them and the people who support them.

By: wylied

wylied — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:00:02 +0000

Or we could do what Israel does:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-foreign-workers-20100802,0,6695058.story

By: herby002

herby002 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 04:00:59 +0000

“Would revoking this American right under our current Constitution actually really change anything on the ground? Hospitals that now care for undocumented immigrant women would most certainly still do so, even if their babies were similarly illegal. Would states, which control their own schools, disallow non-citizens from attending?”

California voters voted to do just that a few years ago:
Made it illegal for “undocumented” children to get free or state-paid medical care, any kind of “welfare” support, or admission to public schools.

The courts stayed implementation of the measure, pending a decision of the CA Supreme Court – which ruled it invalid, and struck it down as unfair & unequal under the State Constitution,

Most of the state’s medical providers and school districts opposed the “law”, and welcomed the final ruling.

By: jimenez013

jimenez013 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:43:15 +0000

I agree 100% There are so many sides to this issue but it doesnt change the fact that this issue exists and it affects all of us who are here legally in one way or another, whether people care or whether they fail to see this is another issue.

By: jimenez013

jimenez013 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:38:16 +0000

Although I agree that children should not be punished for their parents being illegal immigrants, there is an underlying issue that must be addressed. Many illegal immigrants come here to live and they do not pay taxes, they make up bogus employment and income and get food stamps and medical for their ¨8¨ US Citizen children. By the way, there is no way to prove that they are over income for these programs! Another thing is if you cant get a job legally is it ok to have 8 kids and be able live off of the government money because you have 8 kids? No one should have multiple children if they cant afford it! Its understood that people come here because of poor conditions in their own country but our country is at a deficit as it is, our unemployment rate *of honest working citizens here legally, is rising. Is it our obligation to save all other citizens of foreign nations? There are many obvious issues with illegal immigration, the question is: how can we penalize illegal immigrant without penalizing their natural born US citizen children? Is it our obligation to help people how have children here who came in illegally, technically many of them dont even ¨exist¨ and there will never be an accurate number of illegal aliens in the US!

By: gysgt213

gysgt213 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:29:25 +0000

The entire premise of this is wrong. People are not coming here to have their babies born as Americans. They are coming here because the situation in their own countries is so bad they are trying to survive.
.
America get over yourself.

By: bobcn1

bobcn1 — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:14:56 +0000

For those of you who think that changing the 14th is a good idea here’s a question for you: Can you prove that your parents and grandparents are citizens or legal immigrants? You may believe it — but can you prove it?

In my case I’ve been told that my grandparents were immigrants. Can I prove that they were legal immigrants? No. Can I even prove that my parents (now passed away) were citizens? No, I can’t. I don’t have any documents that prove it.

I suspect that this would be the case for a lot of people (if not most). I have a birth certificate, but if that wasn’t good enough to prove citizenship, I don’t know what I’d do. It would be my word against anyone who wanted to dispute it.

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:06:02 +0000

Like I kinda said earlier; they can revoke the 14th as long as they make it retroactive back to when the Constitution was ratified.
.
The irony is that the 14th also had lots to say about letting Confederates who’d committed treason against the United States regain their citizenship.
.
I wonder how Lindsey Graham would feel if we started debating whether or not his great grandfather should’ve been denied citizenship — and thus Lindsey too?

By: bobcn1

bobcn1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:58:08 +0000

‘If you come to this country to live/study (or any other country that i’m aware of) without the proper paper work, it’s illegal. Malkin’s parents were here legally. So she clearly couldn’t be an “anchor baby”, correct?’
.
If the criteria for citizenship was no longer whether a person was born in the US, then it wouldn’t matter if Malkin’s parents were ‘illegal’ or not. It wouldn’t matter whether she were an ‘anchor baby’ or not. Malkin wouldn’t be an American — she’d be a Filipino.
.
In the unlikely event that the 14th were to be changed, I doubt that the change would retroactively strip people of citizenship. However, for Malkin I’d be willing to make an exception.

By: surazeus

surazeus — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:46:20 +0000

We are all fellow Wohalians, sharing this continent from Alaska to Mexico.

By: surazeus

surazeus — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:42:24 +0000

I have more than 100 ancestors who sailed from war-ravaged Europe and just walked off the boat into America between 1630 and 1840 and built better lives. I see everyone who lives on Wohali (Eagle in Cherokee and my name for North America) as my fellow human beings who deserve rewards for hard work to build better lives for their children.

By: lookinfromoutside

lookinfromoutside — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:37:21 +0000

What about the people who lived in Arizona before it was sold to the US by Mexico and had the border jump over their heads. Are their descendants going to be stripped of citizenship?
.
As Apr2563 said, how far back is far enough? And fair enough?