Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Well that's simple Rod, a tourist visa is for tourism, not having babies. Using a tourist visa for anchor baby citizenship is indeed fraud, thus the legal status of the mother should be voided ab initio, which legally means she never was here legally in the first place.

 

I kinda disagree. It is perfectly legal and above board for a foreign mother to want to give birth in the US because she feels the medical care is much better.. No different from an American going to Mexico or India or Poland or wherever for medical care.. The problem is granting citizenship to the newborn simply because a few guys in black robes, in clear violation of the 14th, thought tit would be nice. So if the mother is coming here for better medical care, fine and dandy; if she is coming here so her newborn will be an American citizen, I think (as does the 14th) she should go pound sand but the guys in black robes think it is fine and dandy, too, and they have no checks and balances to stop them.

 

Immigration has always been beneficial to the US. We can see the success and contributions of Dreamers. We get a broader exposure to new ideas throughout industry and society. We get new energized labor.

On another note, our procreation rate has fallen below the rate required for maintaining a steady state population.

There are serious economic problems that arise when population begins to contract. That's not happening today, as procreation rate is not a measure of current growth - it's a measure of our future.

China and other countries are hitting this reality and are working to encourage people to have more babies (what a change!). But, such attempts don't tend to work.

In the US, we have a better way not so available to China and others - immigration!

 

The Ark case has some confusion, but there wasn't confusion about how the 14th amendment was applied.

The 14th doesn't say anything about allegiance. Plus, there is no way to measure allegiance.

It does specify being under US jurisdiction, as noted by the SC in that case. That's what it says, and that CAN be measured.

One can be under US jurisdiction simply by being here. It doesn't require any official documents.

You would have to explain how the SC misinterpreted the 14th amendment.

 

The 14th doesn't say anything about the citizenship of the parents.

It does identify US jurisdiction, as babies born in embassies (for one example) aren't under US jurisdiction.

 

I know you and Trump believe there is a misinterpretation of the 14th.

But, I don't see anyone explaining that misinterpretation.

The citizenship phrase is short and seemingly well defined:

How is that being misinterpreted?

 

20 pages of clear explanations....and you still don't get it. You never will so there's no use in wasting time on you.

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/20200123_birth-tourism-update.html

 

No. You posted Trump.

Trump did NOT explain how the 14th amendment is being improperly interpreted by the USSC.

All he did was state what he wants.

 

This is the kind of ruling that is so grossly unconstitutional as to be absurd.

The idea of having some joker in some embassy somewhere making a legally binding ruling on his GUESS as to intent is just to absurd for words.

In NO other situation would any honest right winger want the federal government to be hiring operatives to guess YOUR intent.

 

And with due respect, this further shows your lack of Constitutional knowledge. Foreigners don't have a right to come here, nor do they have a right to have a baby here.

 

The point is that YOU are advocating for the federal government to GUESS what people intend.

NO rational right winger would be interested in the federal government hiring people to GUESS what you or anyone else is going to do.

Did they consider demanding medical information to see if their stay would end before the due date?

Nope - probably because that is an invasion of privacy, too.

 

Unfettered immigration is not only detrimental but disastrous. That is why, once we were a mature and large country, we put very stringent controls on immigration and allowed people to immigrate only if they were from certain places, passed certain tests, and were deemed directly beneficial to America. We even stopped immigration for a coupe of decades in the early 1900s or so to allow those who had already immigrated to assimilate. That's why, for example, also Cesar Chavez fought tooth and nail to stop illegal and unchecked immigration.

If you have open borders, you have no borders, and a country without borders is not a country.

 

I am not confused about how the 14th was applied. It was just applied wrong. There is no misunderstanding by anyone who looks into it that under the jurisdiction of meant and means allegiance to. Every single human being within our borders (and even a few outside) except diplomats with immunity and in their embassy is under our jurisdiction according to your use. If that is so why would it have to go into the Constitution? For the same reason the writers of the 14th didn't also say breathing.

You seem to be hung up with the lack of specifics in the word allegiance. A president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. What the hell are those? It is a crime to create a destructive disturbance. What the hell is that? Ad infinitum.

 

Parents do not have to be citizens under the 14th.

 

Someone who is only a baby and has only been in the country for maybe 2 years, and is being deported back to the country of their parents, which is considered their home country, does not owe allegiance to the U.S. Neither are they going to continue to be under U.S. jurisdiction. Under just the Fourteenth Amendment (which is NOT the only source for citizenship rights, by the way), the U.S. does not owe them citizenship if they are not permanently living in the U.S.

 

Immigration has been a MAJOR contribution to the USA being a large, strong country.

Our highly complex maze of immigration law is one of the reasons that many give up hope and simply try to get in any way they can. Not every immigrant can afford legal council. And, we don't provide methods of legal immigration that those who want to immigrate can have any faith in.

 

Let me count the ways.

 

No, some immigrants have made MAJOR contributions to the USA.

They ought to try getting into almost any other country to get a perspective.

 

That is NOT necessarily an argument to continue it.
Let's keep in mind America had more restrictive immigration laws in the past, around the time when the U.S. began becoming a "strong country".

I wonder if you really understand history. Around 1880 America was taking in large amounts of immigration trying to populate the mostly empty Midwest and Great Plains region. Back when ordinary families could make a living from farming. Today people mostly do not want to live in that region.

 

Probably so.

 

And had FAR, FAR fewer restrictions for the majority of our history.

 

Yes. The 14th excludes the offspring of ambassadors, embassies, etc.

The word "allegiance" isn't in the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. So, why are people talking about that?

Yes, there is also the constant strengthening of what is "cruel and unusual punishment". But, the question is the 14th amendment. I don't see anything vague in that amendment.

I don't believe you can make progress against the 14th amendment by impugning the constitution as a whole.

 

Not true. You are thinking about a much earlier time in American history.

 

I'm thinking of the vast majority of American history. Complaining that the vast majority is an "earlier time" is a fake argument. For most of our country's history, most people who wanted to move here could just do so. Period.