Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentImmigration · 1 decade ago

Why does the United States allow Illegal Immigrants' American born children to obtain U. S. Citizenship?

This is against the U.S. Constitution to allow Illegal Immigrants' children to automatically be able to receive the United States Citizenship as these Illegal Immigrants are already in violation of our Laws.

This is called "Anchor Babies" and in many countries around the world this is against the Law and it should be against the Law here in the United Stares as well.

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The United States does not "allow" birth citizenship, the United States grants citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil. That citizenship being granted by birth or naturalization is done so by the U.S. Constitution and as such it is not against the Constitution to do so.

    Any misinterpretations by any person will only be that persons personal interpretation until the Constitution is changed by the people's authorized representatives. In other words just because you or another believes it to be used with misinterpretation of the words means does not make it wrong just disliked for what it allows and grants.

    "Amendment Summary" (in part)

    "Amendment - 14th Ratified - 1868 Description - Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts"

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h926.html

    "Amendment XIV" (in part)

    "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."

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h232.html

    "The United States Constitution" (in part)

    "Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868."

    "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."

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

    Changing the wording becomes part of the problem not the answer, from Docar's Federalist Blog. (in part)

    "The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:

    [A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens."

    "Other States, like Kentucky, made the condition of citizenship dependent on either parent: “…every child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.”"

    "What changed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment? Not much really. States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York by 1857 had already a code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.” This code overturned the court ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) where the court was forced to consider the English common law rule in regards to children born of aliens because New York had no laws on the subject.

    After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, California, Montana and South Dakota adopted identical language as New York. States could enact such laws because “transient aliens” could not be considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Now, citizens of the United States who were born in any State would be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States (Hint: newly freed slaves who were now citizens themselves).

    The State of Connecticut adopted a law that read, “All persons born in this State … except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.”

    http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subjec...

    As for using the term "bastard child" here is my answer of my feelings.

    "How do you feel about anchor babies or border babies?"

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApOWI...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well for one thing, Hoodrich is very incorrect with his $3 an hour analogy. It is the Right Wing Americans that employ the vast majorities of the illegals aliens, those who own the big service area of the public and a vast majority of the factories. Big business is a republican thing, no a leftest ideal. I live near the Chicago-land area, and the factories in my area, are owned by republicans and employ tons of illegals. Man don't put that on our backs.

    Now I feel that you shouldn't be deemed an American citizen because you were born here. If your parent(s) are here illegally, then you are born in this country illegally. Pretty much the same thing that we would considered a true Bastard who is a child born out of wedlock, pretty much illegally born without a moral setting. That the definition of Bastard as I have known it to be. I believe that the children of illegals, should be deemed Bastard Citizens and have no right to collect any benefits. What next, a woman gets pregnant while illegally in America, stays for a few months, then is caught and deported, but when the baby is born she claims he an American because he was conceived while she was in America? Why Not, right?

    Please, I know that just about all have come from somewhere else, but I am eighth generation in this country, and we paid our dues and some of mine have given their lives for this country. I have paid into this country via taxes since I have been 12 years old which was over forty or so years ago.

    I feel that the kids along with their parents should be deported. If I rob a bank, should my kids get to keep the money and benefit by my being a burden to others?

    I have many friend who went through the proper channels to come and legally stay here, becoming U.S. citizens and they don't approve one bit of whats going on.

    Sorry, I'm on the left when it comes to politics, but this I must step to the right. It's wrong all the way around. I sure wish someone would grant me with a great honor and shower me with automatic benefits and monetary support without me doing a thing, and all while illegal acts being in play.

    They need to earn it in the same manner as all of us Legal U.S. Citizens had to, by either birth of legal and lawful U.S. Citizens, or applying for citizenship and being granted such.

    I am steeping off the soap box for now.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • REJJI
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    On the contrary; it is not against the law. However, just because illegals have american born children doesn't mean that they can 'anchor' themselves to the US because their child was born here. There are many parents, who when caught, are deported, regardless of the fact that they have a US born child.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Because US law quite clearly states that anyone born on US soil is a US citizen by birth. Most countries don't allow that and, strangely, the USA hasn't caught up yet.

    This used to be true here in the UK but the British Nationality Act 1981 changed all that - birth in the UK now only makes you British if you have at least one British citizen parent. Maybe the President doesn't think it's a problem?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    Like any other political issues, both side lie and manipulate facts to support their point of view. But this issue is clear cut: 1. Illegal aliens are by definition criminals. 2. Illegal Aliens do commit other crimes. 3. Federal and International law both prescribe deportation. 4. Anchor baby laws are making it more difficult to serve justice. 5. Any and all persons committing crimes should be prosecuted and or deported as the law dictates. 6. Failure to do so is unfair to the citizens and all those who have jumped through all the hoops to be legal. 7. Reasonable immigration procedures cannot be created so long as we have millions of criminals clogging the system. 9. Making them legal makes a mockery of our legal system and encourages other criminal activity. There is really nothing more to say than arrest, prosecute, imprison and deport any illegal alien. Anybody caught employing, housing or otherwise abetting illegal aliens needs to be treated likewise, as appropriate. There is nothing further to discuss.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It was an error in Washington that Congress has never straightened out. Congress took to calling the American People racists, bums and other far less pleasant names, and they simply don't seem to care what we want here. The law was never corrected, but by the 14th amendment children of diplomats, visitors and illegal aliens are not granted citizenship.

    Birthright Citzenship

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/video/tsc_writers...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    "Amendment - 14th Ratified - 1868 Description - Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts"

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Constitution indicates that anyone who is born in US soil are US Citizen regardless of their parents' status.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Deport themwith there children and allow the kids to decided at 18 where they want to be OR leave em in america.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It is against the law! One person misinterpreted it and we end up with "Anchor Babies"! Politicians are too _____________(fill in the blank) to do anything about it! Time to take out the trash! Remember this come election time!

    First world countries do NOT have Jus Soli (birthright citizenship) except the US and Canada. So if you have a child in the UK and your both American your child is a US citizen and NOT a British citizen!

    So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws or boarders.

    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the ***** or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have natural allegiance in mind since under common law it did not always matter who owed allegiance in advance.

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

    Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

    During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country - an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine - and of course, the question of Indians.

    Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian’s not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.

    In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

    The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No, it is part of an interpretation OF the U.S. Constitution: the 14th amendment. It wasn't always interpreted that way, perhaps it won't be forever, but it isn't against the constitution.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.