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

Democrats Link CR to Debt Ceiling in Possible Executive Power Grab

HuffPo starts us off with background on the 14th Amendment.

Obama DOJ Still Won't Explain Opposition To 14th Amendment Option

'WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is still refusing to disclose what its legal team concluded about the 14th Amendment option, which many progressives believe would allow the president to continue to pay the government's obligations if Congress refused to raise the statutory debt limit.

In January, ahead of what was sure to be another budget battle, The Huffington Post filed a Freedom of Information Act request with The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, seeking documents regarding the office's advice to the president on the 14th Amendment option. Last week, the office rejected that request but acknowledged the existence of memorandums on the option -- meaning the Obama administration had at least given the option significant consideration.'

 continues....

'Proponents of the option point to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that the “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” It follows, then, that the president could raise the government's borrowing limit, independent of congressional gridlock -- a potential way forward as the government again approaches a shutdown.'

 continues....

'The sought-after documents would likely explain in detail why the administration does not believe the 14th Amendment allows the president to raise the debt ceiling limit without congressional approval. Yet, it is possible the memos conclude that the president could raise the debt ceiling limit, and the president simply disagreed with their advice.'

 Author and Radio Host Mark Levin offers a possible explanation. 

Motive and Opportunity 

Democrats push to connect CR, debt ceiling

 Politico writes:

'Senate Democrats hope to raise the debt ceiling and reopen the government in one fell swoop, leaders indicated on Thursday.

Democratic demands are the same as they’ve always been: They want the GOP to agree to a debt ceiling increase and a continuing resolution to open the government that doesn’t include policy riders, particularly related to Obamacare. But now that the government is closed and the debt limit just two weeks away, leadership on Thursday sought to more explicitly connect the two critical items.'

continues....

'Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his chief message man, New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer , did not say when the Senate will seek to move a debt ceiling increase or whether it will move that legislation separate from a spending bill or in a package. But in their minds, the two issues have become inextricably linked, given the October calendar.'

Rationalize the TYRANNY

Our Outlaw President? Obama Should Ignore the Debt Ceiling

 By: Henry J. Aaron

The United States government is likely to shut down nonessential services tomorrow, after House Republicans voted before dawn yesterday to attach a one-year delay of President Obama’s health care law (and a repeal of a tax to pay for it) to legislation to keep the government running. The Democratic-led Senate is expected to refuse.

House Republicans also said last week that they would not agree to lift the debt ceiling unless implementation of the health law was delayed by one year. So the government is also headed toward a mid-October default on its debts — and a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Failure to raise the debt will force the president to break a law — the only question is which one.

The Constitution requires the president to spend what Congress has instructed him to spend, to raise only those taxes Congress has authorized him to impose and to borrow no more than Congress authorizes.

If President Obama spends what the law orders him to spend and collects the taxes Congress has authorized him to collect, then he must borrow more than Congress has authorized him to borrow. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he will have to violate one of these constitutional imperatives. Which should he choose?

In 2011, when Congress last flirted with not raising the debt ceiling, lawyers disagreed. Some argued that the president must honor the debt ceiling, thereby violating budget laws. Others held that he must honor budget legislation. No one argued that he should unilaterally raise taxes. Professors Neil H. Buchanan and Michael C. Dorf, who parsed the arguments in the Columbia Law Review in 2012, concluded that all options were bad, but that disregarding the debt ceiling was least bad from a legal standpoint.

I agree. Lawyers tend to play down policy considerations as a basis for interpreting law. In this case, the consequences are so overwhelmingly on one side that they cannot be ignored by the president and should not be ignored by the courts. If the debt ceiling is not increased, the president should disregard it, and honor spending and tax legislation.

A decision to cut spending enough to avoid borrowing would instantaneously slash outlays by approximately $600 billion a year. Cutting payments to veterans, Social Security benefits and interest on the national debt by half would just about do the job. But such cuts would not only illegally betray promises to veterans, the elderly and disabled and bondholders; they would destroy the credit standing of the United States and boost borrowing costs on the nation’s $12 trillion publicly held debt.

There is no clear legal basis for deciding what programs to cut. Defense contractors, or Medicare payments to doctors? Education grants, or the F.B.I.? Endless litigation would follow. No matter how the cuts might be distributed, they would, if sustained for more than a very brief period, kill the economic recovery and cause unemployment to return quickly to double digits.

Nor is it reasonable to expect the president to collect more in taxes than is authorized by law. For him to do so would infringe on Congress’s most fundamental powers and the principles on which the nation was founded.

The only defensible option for the president if the debt ceiling is not raised is to disregard the debt ceiling. The action would be unconstitutional because it would be illegal. Financial markets might react negatively, but not nearly so negatively as if the United States failed to redeem bonds or to pay interest on its debt.

The president would be attacked. He might even be impeached by the House. But maybe not: the House would then be saying that the president should have illegally failed to pay F.B.I. agents, or school districts, or Medicare doctors. In any case, he would not be convicted by the Senate. And he would have saved the nation from much agony.

Disregarding the debt ceiling would have one additional, thoroughly benign effect. It would end the capacity of Congressional minorities to precipitate crises in order to accomplish goals for which they lacked the votes. Today, a minority is holding hostage all federal programs in an attempt to eviscerate a law that Congress passed, the president signed and the Supreme Court upheld — the Affordable Care Act. In the future, an imaginative and irresponsible minority could use the threat not to raise the debt ceiling for any purpose — to shape tax policy, or foreign policy, or civil rights policy.
The debt ceiling is the fiscal equivalent of the human appendix — a law with no discoverable purpose. It is one law too many. Once Congress has set tax rates and spending levels, it has effectively said what it wants the debt to be. If Congress leaves the debt ceiling at a level inconsistent with duly enacted spending and tax laws, the president has no choice but to ignore it.