Simply having your baby while on vacation or visiting .. like if you gave birth in America they cant make you leave?

That is what a friend said and I thought if anyone knows it would be ar15.com..

lol \

sounds like a wierd loophole what is the purpose of this if it is true?

The baby will be an American citizen if born on US soil as I understand it ... This opens the door for the whole family to be able to immigrate legally to care for their newly born US Citizen.

Look up "Anchor baby".

Any person born in the United States is granted citizneship.  The baby is a US citizen, the parent is not.  One name for this is 'anchor baby'.  We are not likely to expel the parents and make the child a ward of the state.
The citizenship of the parent(s) is not affected.

That kid would be an American citizen.  The INS is then inclined to let the parents stay, as to keep the family together.

(my understanding)

They call them 'anchor babies'.

By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens.

The parents are not.

The bleeding heart theory comes into place because 'you can't kick out the parents of a legal us citizen!!!!"

In reality, they can and should be kicked out if not here legally.

Anyone born on US soil is an American citizen.

Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens.

Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution

BTW, this is for the people that think the 14th amnemdment grants citizenship to 'anchor babies':

"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." Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution

See my post after yours.

You are ignorant of the facts.

I've provided you with the appropriate information.

Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you.

Quoted: Anyone born on US soil is an American citizen.

Not by any written law.

Not by original intent of the 14th amendment.

Only by perversion of the law.

When did facts get in the way of a little bleeding heart liberalism?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you.

Oh look, a constitutional scholar.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar.

Oh, look, someone who just got called on their ignorance and now sidesteps around it in an attempt to look clever.

You made a statement.

You were shown to be wrong.

Now you just try to make snide remarks to cover up for your ignorance.

Your behavior is transparent.

Either acknowledge the facts, or leave debating for adults.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar.

Oh look...another liberal who spouts insults instead of facts.

Quoted: Anyone born on US soil is an American citizen.

yep.

Quoted: Quoted: Anyone born on US soil is an American citizen. Not by any written law. Not by original intent of the 14th amendment. Only by perversion of the law.

True, but that's the reality of it.

Last year in Milwaukee, some pro-democracy refugee from the Congo was waiting to be exported back to her lovely country because her lawyer screwed up her paperwork.  She'd been here 10-15 years and had two chitlins born while here.  Until my incredibly fat, mean, and ugly congresswoman got involved, she was told the kids could stay - but she had to go.

A fo'riner dropping crumb snatchers here may have an edge on getting a green card, but nothing is absolutely certain in the eyes of the law.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone born on US soil is an American citizen. Not by any written law. Not by original intent of the 14th amendment. Only by perversion of the law. True, but that's the reality of it.

Yes, but it means that congress has the power to set 'anchor baby' policy and they are NOT limited by the 14th amendment to end the custom of giving citizenship away to those who shouldn't have it.

That's the important thing.

Quoted: BTW, this is for the people that think the 14th amnemdment grants citizenship to 'anchor babies': "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." Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Then why didn't he include that last little tidbit into the Constitution?  Would have saved us a lot of trouble.  As written, the amendment would indeed grant citizenship to anchor babies.

No.

Quoted: Quoted: BTW, this is for the people that think the 14th amnemdment grants citizenship to 'anchor babies': "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." Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866. Then why didn't he include that last little tidbit into the Constitution?  Would have saved us a lot of trouble.  As written, the amendment would indeed grant citizenship to anchor babies.

Why was the 2nd amendment written in such a manner that people think it only applies to the national guard?

The sad fact is that for the first 100 years of this country, they wrote the amendments in plain, easy to understand language, and left a trail of speeches and writings that show their original intent of how it should be interpreted.

They had no idea the modern day liberal would twist their amendments to mean the exact opposite of what they are supposed to mean.

It's not a defect in the writing, it's a defect in interpretation. We have the same problem with almost every amendment.

I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor completely ignorant to the facts, but the statement attributed to the co-author of the 14th Amendment seems to indicate that the EXCLUDED class is specifically aimed at foreigners who are government envoys...

Meaning that if the person is here due to government obligation, that their children born here are to remain citizens of their parents' origin, not citizens of the US.

All other classes of persons would be citizens of the US if born here.


ETA: Apparently I read it correctly...perversion of Amend. 14, Sec 1 or not...

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. 6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 9 The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. 10

Analysis of Amend 14, Sec 1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar. Oh look...another liberal who spouts insults instead of facts.

all you get is a

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar. Oh, look, someone who just got called on their ignorance and now sidesteps around it in an attempt to look clever. You made a statement. You were shown to be wrong. Now you just try to make snide remarks to cover up for your ignorance. Your behavior is transparent. Either acknowledge the facts, or leave debating for adults.

Facts?

Let me check my pocket constitution......hmmmm.......no, still says what it thought said - the extemporizing of Sen Howard notwithstanding.

You have to keep in mind that, for the first 150 or so years of our history, we desperately WANTED and NEEDED citizens.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar. Oh, look, someone who just got called on their ignorance and now sidesteps around it in an attempt to look clever. You made a statement. You were shown to be wrong. Now you just try to make snide remarks to cover up for your ignorance. Your behavior is transparent. Either acknowledge the facts, or leave debating for adults. Facts? Let me check my pocket constitution......hmmmm.......no, still says what it thought said - the extemporizing of Sen Howard notwithstanding. You have to keep in mind that, for the first 150 or so years of our history, we desperately WANTED and NEEDED citizens.

You know, the sad part is that apparently you have nothing better to do than to make yourself look like a fool online.

Maybe a hobby is in order.

nyah nyah nyah...where's that internet retard argument icon...

isn't congress proposing to end the anchor baby loophole?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar. Oh, look, someone who just got called on their ignorance and now sidesteps around it in an attempt to look clever. You made a statement. You were shown to be wrong. Now you just try to make snide remarks to cover up for your ignorance. Your behavior is transparent. Either acknowledge the facts, or leave debating for adults. Facts? Let me check my pocket constitution......hmmmm.......no, still says what it thought said - the extemporizing of Sen Howard notwithstanding. You have to keep in mind that, for the first 150 or so years of our history, we desperately WANTED and NEEDED citizens. You know, the sad part is that apparently you have nothing better to do than to make yourself look like a fool online. Maybe a hobby is in order.

So you're saying they've changed the constitution? I guess I need to get the new version.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar. Oh, look, someone who just got called on their ignorance and now sidesteps around it in an attempt to look clever. You made a statement. You were shown to be wrong. Now you just try to make snide remarks to cover up for your ignorance. Your behavior is transparent. Either acknowledge the facts, or leave debating for adults. Facts? Let me check my pocket constitution......hmmmm.......no, still says what it thought said - the extemporizing of Sen Howard notwithstanding. You have to keep in mind that, for the first 150 or so years of our history, we desperately WANTED and NEEDED citizens. You know, the sad part is that apparently you have nothing better to do than to make yourself look like a fool online. Maybe a hobby is in order. So you're saying they've changed the constitution? I guess I need to get the new version.

I'm saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and now you're spinning and throwing around shit just to see if you can get something to stick.

If you ever wanted to know what an anti-gunner thinks when they twist the obvious language of the 2nd amendment to suit their needs, just take what you're doing to the 14th amendment and apply it there.

The language is plain. The original intent is there. You're trying to tack on other extraneous crap (america needed everybody it could get in the 1800's) in order to 'prove' something that isn't there.

Quoted: nyah nyah nyah...where's that internet retard argument icon... isn't congress proposing to end the anchor baby loophole?

Some are...which would be their power.

Now, if the 14th were interpreted as some here (like novagator) think it should be - then congress WOULD NOT have the power to do that.

But surprise, he's wrong, and they do have the power.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By custom, not by law, children born in the US are considered US citizens. Yeah, a little "custom" called the Constitution See my post after yours. You are ignorant of the facts. I've provided you with the appropriate information. Whether you choose to remain ignorant is up to you. Oh look, a constitutional scholar. Oh, look, someone who just got called on their ignorance and now sidesteps around it in an attempt to look clever. You made a statement. You were shown to be wrong. Now you just try to make snide remarks to cover up for your ignorance. Your behavior is transparent. Either acknowledge the facts, or leave debating for adults. Facts? Let me check my pocket constitution......hmmmm.......no, still says what it thought said - the extemporizing of Sen Howard notwithstanding. You have to keep in mind that, for the first 150 or so years of our history, we desperately WANTED and NEEDED citizens. You know, the sad part is that apparently you have nothing better to do than to make yourself look like a fool online. Maybe a hobby is in order. So you're saying they've changed the constitution? I guess I need to get the new version. I'm saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and now you're spinning and throwing around shit just to see if you can get something to stick. If you ever wanted to know what an anti-gunner thinks when they twist the obvious language of the 2nd amendment to suit their needs, just take what you're doing to the 14th amendment and apply it there. The language is plain. The original intent is there. You're trying to tack on other extraneous crap (america needed everybody it could get in the 1800's) in order to 'prove' something that isn't there.

This is pretty clear to me:

"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 spinning. It says what it says.

You have a different interpretation, which you're welcome to.

WRT the need to add citizens, are you familiar with the term jus soli.

There's a reason that jus soli is and always has been prevalent thought the western hemisphere.

Quoted: Quoted: nyah nyah nyah...where's that internet retard argument icon... isn't congress proposing to end the anchor baby loophole? Some are...which would be their power. Now, if the 14th were interpreted as some here (like novagator) think it should be - then congress WOULD NOT have the power to do that. But surprise, he's wrong, and they do have the power.

I'm not making a normative argument. The fact of the matter is that we have been granting citizenship to anchor babies for a long time. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong....

The 14th and our immigration policy has been a source of contention within the Sierra Club. Some feel that the Sierra Club needs to start lobbying to change the 14th and immigration to restrict population growth. They feel this is a natural extension of their main goal of preserving the wild resources of the USA. The liberals with other political intentions as well and who make up majority of the membership, buy into the Democratic line of more new immigrants brings more Democratic voters than Republican ones. There even as been some resignations over this.

Just thought I would add that into the mix here since it is related and is interesting. My question is how can environmentalist continue on without concern over growing population. At some point, this is going to bust.

Quoted: If you ever wanted to know what an anti-gunner thinks when they twist the obvious language of the 2nd amendment to suit their needs, just take what you're doing to the 14th amendment and apply it there. The language is plain. The original intent is there. You're trying to tack on other extraneous crap (america needed everybody it could get in the 1800's) in order to 'prove' something that isn't there.

I'm reading what the amendment says.  I am reading what the co-author said about the amendment.  Then I am reading annotations of analysis of what was POSSIBLY meant by the language.

The three items come together to LOOK LIKE the government wanted to specifically exclude foreign diplomats here on gov't business from getting U.S. citizen children.

Perversion of the Amendment?  Maybe.  Citizenship being granted to US-born foreign origin babies?  Yep.

In practice, the US Gov't has been allowing "anchor babies" in a couple centuries now.

Should it be changed to SPECIFICALLY disallow this perversion of the intent of the Constitution?  Yep.

Quoted: BTW, this is for the people that think the 14th amnemdment grants citizenship to 'anchor babies': "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." Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Doesn't matter what the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment had to say about the amendment, it matters what is actually written into the Constitution, and the Amendment says that all persons born in the United States are citizens.  Doesn't make exceptions, isn't confusing language to read, it is pretty straight forward.  It states, in plain english, that ALL persons born in the US are citizens.

The American educational system is to blame for many of our problems.  Constitutional law should be mandatory for all high school graduates.  It would go a long way towards cleaning up the problems in this country.  I had to go to law school to learn what it truly means to be American citizen.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are collectively known as the post-Civil War Amendments.  The intent of these 3 Amendments were to protect the God-given rights of the newly-freed slaves.  I seriously doubt that anchor babies were even considered a problem at the time.  The problem was that Reconstruction required a means of protecting millions of "new" Americans (slaves) from the deprivations of local and state governments.  These state governments had taken up arms against the Union to protect their property (slaves).  State's rights died in the Appomattox Court House.  These Amendments were ratified to protect the slaves.  Through a 150+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, these amendments have been expanded and expanded.  For all the ladies in the house, your right to an abortion comes from the 14th Amendment due process clause case law.  As does the right of illegal aliens to drop anchor babies, or the right of hippies to smoke weed in their basement, and old men to jerk off to adult porn.

The 14th Amendment needs to be 'amended'.  This is why big govt. doesn't work.  In attempting to protect the rights of slaves, the government planted the seeds of our current illegal alien problem.

FYI-  Portions of the Bill of Rights are a restraint upon ONLY the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Until the passing of the 14th Amendment (Due Process Clause), those rights could be violated by the States.  Once again, through Supreme Court case law, certain portions of the Bill of Rights have been incorportated into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This piece-by-piece incorporation has for the most part led to more freedom for Americans.  However, the Second Amendment has not yet undergone this 14th Amendment baptism.  And you ask why not?  Because it is too HOT to touch.  Imagine if SCOTUS said next June, "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in."  Never gonna happen.  I don't think the Union could survive another Civil War, fought with modern assault-style weapons.  However, I keep my guns cleaned and mags loaded just in case.


Amendment XIV

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.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Quoted: However, I keep my guns cleaned and mags loaded just in case.

You'll still turn them in when they come for them.

I'll turn them in, when I'm done using them.

Quoted: Any person born in the United States is granted citizneship.  The baby is a US citizen, the parent is not.  One name for this is 'anchor baby'.  We are not likely to expel the parents and make the child a ward of the state. The citizenship of the parent(s) is not affected.

Correct. That is how Bruce Lee was an American.

He was born while his parents were working in the US.

A rule of construction when interpreting laws is "plain language" or "plain meaning."  

If the law is unambiguous on its face, and is capable of being understood, without any leaps of logic or strainning to understand, its plain meaning will determine its effect.  

If anything else was meant, it is presumed that the drafter(s) would have included something else in the language of the law itself.  

There is no real need to look to intent of the drafter, session notes, committee minutes, or the like, to determine intent if the plain meaning is clear.  

The 14th Amendment states clearly, and unambiguously, that "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."

Stop.  Do no pass go.  Do not collect $200.  No further analysis needed.  

If we want to change it, the Constitution MUST be amended.  Period.  

Quoted: nyah nyah nyah...where's that internet retard argument icon... isn't congress proposing to end the anchor baby loophole?

Yes, from what I have read and heard that's true.  The INS is considering sending the parents back to their country and also the child.  If the parent decides to leave the child in the US they will give up their parental rights and the child goes to CPS or a legal relative.  As I understand it....