Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

US jurisdiction means that US law applies. For that, allegiance is irrelevant.

Someone can't say, "Sorry, my allegiance is to Russia, so your US law doesn't apply to me."

I don't know why "allegiance" is part of this discussion.

I think you answered that.

It's there, because it identifies when birth inside the US gives US citizenship and when it doesn't.

 

Our immigration law has grown to be hugely complex.

Not only that, but for a majority of those who want to come here, the paths involve randomness and are constantly changing.

We change per-country quotas, categories under which immigrants may apply, methods of selection of applicants and other factors.

Zero of those coming here from Mexico without papers had a method of coming here that they could count on.

We have a major maze of types of status. If you don't have one of the professions the state department is looking for, or family here already, you probably have to apply to the "Diversity Program".

Those slots are allocated by country, with numbers that change. Each year, some number is chosen at random. So, you may have applied every year for the last 10 years, but that gives you ZERO more chance of being selected this year - there is no "line" to get in.

Also, countries can simply be removed from the list of possible countries.

This year we will accept NOBODY from these countries through the diversity program, because a quota of 50k have come here over the last 5 years has been met:

Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (including Hong Kong SAR), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea (South Korea), United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

So, get what Mexicans - don't even bother applying.

 

Not explicitly it doesn't. The words ambassador or embassy or offspring are nowhere to be found in the 14th amendment (for that matter not the Constitution either).

 

Well, they could say it and discover in a New York minute how wrong they are as they sit in some jail cell.

 

It doesn't have to. What IS said covers these as well as the possibility of other similar exemptions from US law.

 

But that is just your assumption, while my assumptions are not permitted correct or relevant!

 

OK, I don't know what your assumptions are, probably.

I did address the issue of allegiance, I think.

Also, I accept the definition the USSC gave for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That's not my assumption. I just point out that there is a useful meaning for that definition. Babies born in embassies, babies born to ambassadors - these are cases where US jurisdiction doesn't apply - so those kids don't get US citizenship.

 

Yes, but in 1882, you had the Chinese Exclusion Act making any and all Chinese "inadmissible" aliens. That law, when it happened basically stated that any person who is of Chinese descent is not considered an American, not a citizen, not even to be there. What the law did not have is a remedy to get rid of inadmissible aliens. We do now, it is called deportation, The parents then left in 1880s, and Wo Kim Ark left to visit them in 1890, and then in 1894. It was in 1894 that things began to go south. So why would immigration officials deny him entry if he was a US Citizen and had nothing to fear? Better question, why would the immigration office allow him to stay in the US and accept the fact that he WAS NOT a USC? Again, it goes to the law and how it violated the US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment.

 

you have no idea WTH you are talking about. Even that artcile that lil Mike posted talks about any alien who is not subject to the jurisdiction within the United States.

 

Yeah, we need to get rid of birth tourists on VISAs, those who purposely come here to give birth making their babies an automatic US citizen.

 

I should introduce you to my friend and tell him that you love Turks. He is from the Island of Crete, that is where he was raised through most of his childhood. But my friend's parents, both of whom came on J visas, met, fell in love, had a baby, graduated and returned home per the J1 visa. But he is a USC, not naturalized, and today works for the NSA. My friend has always been a USC and choose not to continue his Greek Citizenship when he turned 18.

However, what you are referring to is baby tourism, which is more of an internet sensation of myth and falsehood than reality. Although there is some evidence of birth tourism, it is not as common as you are trying to allude. Immigrants can come and go. They will fall in love, have babies, and the fact that we use jus soli pretty much negates any argument you have.

If you want to look at famous "anchor babies," you can look no further than Nikki Haley, Camela Harris, Michelle Malkin, and others. The question you have to ask yourself, barring political affiliation, are they any less American than you?

 

The case doesn't specifically, but if you look at the background of his parents, they were not based on an 1802 law.

 

They're not afraid of legal immigrants. The people of our country have a right to support a president who would actually make it tough on non-US citizens, tourist birthers, to come over our borders to game our system.

 

If you have to obtain a visa to come to the US, including a B1 visa, that alien has to provide several things, including a questionnaire on medical conditions which can include if a woman is pregnant at that time. We do have special circumstances in which for medical issues and reasons, we do allow aliens to come here for medical help, but they must prove they can pay for those medical services. And they generally do. Thus, if they are coming from China, Korea, Nigeria, and a few other countries, you are looking at very rich people in their country, or at least upper middle class.

 

Actually, they are if they are from Asia, Africa, Mexico, Latin America, the Caribbean, etc. It is why they want to curb both legal and illegal immigration, just like the immigration proposal that Trump tried in which it would reduce legal immigration by 50% or more. Some conservatives are even proposing a moratorium on legal immigration altogether.

 

You didn't really address my point, but thanks anyway.

 

Nope. They are not afraid of legal immigration. There will always be a few who don't like legal immigrants though, legal or otherwise. We call them bigots, xenophobes, and the left has their fair share of people who don't like Asians, Africans, Mexicans, etc too.

 

Actually, you did, but you don't understand it.

there are a lot of misconceptions about "birth tourism" and I can assure you that every alien who has to obtain a visa goes through a rigorous process. They have to fill out the DS 157 and 157A. DS 157 asks certain medical questions, and there is one in which a woman is pregnant. Based on those answers and an "interview" by the consulate staff that lasts no more than 15 minutes, and then return the next day to see if you got your visa, which you must have before you board the plane.

 

Oh just stop with the condescending attempt at a rebuttal.
I live in San Diego. I know what goes on. Pregnant woman pour into border cities to give birth just to make their sprogs legal citizens of the US. And then there are the migrant women unauthorized to live in the US who are gaming the system to make their babies automatic US citizens. There is also an International tourist industry, birthing migrants who come here solely to birth, making their babies automatic US citizens.

 

For the late comer know nothing. No ex post facto laws. Chinese already legally admitted, aka WONG Kim Ark's parents, were NOT subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act while they resided in California. J F Christamighty

Article 1 § 10

It's always great for a constitutional expert to chime in on a constitutional question only to reveal they know absolutely nothing about the constitution and basic legalese.

 

Actually they fill out a DS-160. That's the ****ing point.

And just to inform others of how it really works, as opposed to your fake news, an interview lasts less than a minute. The person seeking a visa hands over their passport at the beginning of the interview and if it is handed back at the end, their visa application is denied. You don't "come back the next day to see if you got your visa". Visas are affixed in the passport, and the passport is held by the consulate until the visa is created/printed/affixed....which may take a couple of days or a week or two, depending on the consulate or embassy.

 

You assumed the SCOTUS ruling is accurate. I assume the ruling is wrong. A child who is born on US soil of a mother who arrived yesterday and will leave in a couple of days is NOT a mother who has any allegiance to America. Though for the three days she is here she is under our law and order jurisdiction. Her child should not be a US citizen..

 

I am not familiar with specifics of your reference case but "allegiance" does not necessarily require citizenship, and allegiances can change -- even under the 14th amendment.

 

My god you are still going on about this nonsense. You're wrong, and I'm not interested in continuing this conversation with someone who is simply going to be dishonest about the subject matter.

 

Immigration (and the legality of immigrants) was very different in 1866 (basically up until the 1920s) when we stopped pretty much accepting everyone as long as they weren't carrying disease. Because we needed the population and they weren't being given anything from the government other than opportunity. And then the open door policy became a regulated one because we no longer needed the numbers to that extent. it became different again after the advent of numerous social programs later in the 20th century in terms of cost to society. I am not a hysterical xenophobic rightwing extremist, and I have no problem with the 14th amendment making children who are born here of LEGAL immigrants automatic citizens even if their parents are not yet full citizens, nor do I have a problem increasing LEGAL immigration quotas or job permits for areas where we need more people to do the work. I do wonder if a case could be made that "immigrants" referred to in the 14th amendment refers to those here legally, especially since up until a few years ago when certain factions got all sensitive about terminology, those here illegally were referred to as "illegal aliens", not on a par with legal immigrants.