Children Born to Illegal Immigrants DO NOT Have a Birthright to U.S. Citizenship

The term 'anchor babies' has been around for quite a while and is used in reference to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.  What was the intent of the 14th amendment and  how does it apply to children born in the United States to the parents of ILLEGAL immigrants?

There are some great articles and videos on the web that explain the intent of the 14th amendment, I found this article excerpt  at NRO to be a great start.

Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens. 

Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

Read more at NRO

In fact, the 14th Amendment won;'t have to be repealed to clarify the rules of naturalization muddied by Justice Brennan a few decades ago.  Congress already has the powers under Article 1 Section 8 which clearly states:

The Constitution and legal scholars make it clear that Congress has the power to clarify the laws on naturalization: An excerpt from CNS News of Mark Levin discussing the topic:

“And yet nobody did a better job at explaining this than Professor Edward Erler, who I’ve talked about over the years. And he’s a professor at California State University. He is also at The Claremont Institute, a senior fellow there. But more than that, he happens to be right. And he testified before a subcommittee of Congress many years ago, almost 20 years ago. And he set forth the case. 

“Now, he’s not the only one: Professor Thomas West has; Lino Graglia has, professor at University of Texas School of Law School. But even more than them, the framers of the Constitution set forth the basic law. And then we have, after the Civil War, three amendments to the Constitution – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – called the Civil War Amendments. And we know pretty much what occurred. 

“Professor Erler was testifying. He said, ‘It’s my considered opinion, Congress has the authority, under Section Five of the Fourth Amendment, to define the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course]. Indeed, it is my contention that Congress has exercised that power on many occasions, most recently in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I would say they also exercised it with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.”

The left leaning media and candidates for political office that don't have a legal background or an understanding of the Constitution help muddy the waters on the intent of the 14th Amendment.

Aside from the fact that anchor babies are a drain on the resources of this country and are an affront to our sovereignty,  laws and Constitution, it is obvious that the anchor baby industry  must end now.


Mark Levin discusses the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship with Professor Erler