Colorado - Illegal Immigrants no longer eligble for state health care

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 31, 2006

The children of illegal immigrants who were born on American soil are accurately referred to as 'anchor babies' because their birth makes deportation of the parents nearly impossible. Since the children are U.S. citizens, they qualify for AFDC, food stamps, low-income housing vouchers, WIC, medicaid, and other public assistance goodies.
I see no end in sight.

The term "Anchor Baby" is both offensive and racist and is on a par with the phrase "welfare queen." Both are used as a way to demean and attack the least powerful members of society. The children who are born here are citizens. All children born to a society are worthy of protection and inherent value by society regardless of their parents race, gender, national origin, religion etc. These children are the seedcorn for our future.

If we as a collective society want people to respect and honor society at large that we need to treat them as people and not stereotypes.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 31, 2006

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.(emphasis added)

The text of the amendment was neither conjunctive or additive. (If you take the "or" out you can see what Congress did in this case.) To be a citizen of the US the Fourteenth Amendment contains two ideas within one clause. The ideas are not interdependent but should be read as follows:

Section. 1. All persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Comment: This was intended as a guarantee of citizenship for all people born within the territory of the US and the states. People who live within the boundaries of the US are subject to US law and its jurisdiction with constitutional guarantees of equal protection of civil liberties within each of the states. The intent was to prevent any state from abrogating civil liberties and to ensure that there was due process protection under the laws. This clause codified Jus Soli as a birthright guaranteed to everyone born within the US (with two narrowly drawn exceptions. EG the children of diplomats are not eligible because they are nationals of a foreign power and are exempt from US law due to diplomatic immunity.)

The other independent idea contained within this section is:

Section. 1. All persons...naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Comment: This established that to become a naturalized citizen a person had to take a citizenship oath' agree to follow US and state laws and renounce any allegiance to any foreign powers in order to become a US citizen. As long as the person took the steps to become naturalized they were guaranteed citizenship on both the federal and state level.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 31, 2006

And how can we Americans "attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source"? And what about countries that are so over-populated that having anything resembling an economy is impossible? How are we to interfere with another friendly government's economic policies?

Through our trade agreements.

We also need to protect and promote democratic institutions within these countries.

Land reform is also key. I posted a link to the nation that reflects some of these issues.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Aug 31, 2006

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.(emphasis added)
The text of the amendment was neither conjunctive or additive. (If you take the "or" out you can see what Congress did in this case.) To be a citizen of the US the Fourteenth Amendment contains two ideas within one clause. The ideas are not interdependent but should be read as follows:
Section. 1. All persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Comment: This was intended as a guarantee of citizenship for all people born within the territory of the US and the states. People who live within the boundaries of the US are subject to US law and its jurisdiction with constitutional guarantees of equal protection of civil liberties within each of the states. The intent was to prevent any state from abrogating civil liberties and to ensure that there was due process protection under the laws. This clause codified Jus Soli as a birthright guaranteed to everyone born within the US (with two narrowly drawn exceptions. EG the children of diplomats are not eligible because they are nationals of a foreign power and are exempt from US law due to diplomatic immunity.)
The other independent idea contained within this section is:
Section. 1. All persons...naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Comment: This established that to become a naturalized citizen a person had to take a citizenship oath' agree to follow US and state laws and renounce any allegiance to any foreign powers in order to become a US citizen. As long as the person took the steps to become naturalized they were guaranteed citizenship on both the federal and state level.

You are trying overly hard to force the language to fit what you want it to mean.

Your linguistics lesson is NOT what the 14th Amendment had in mind. Keep in mind that this Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments and had drawing permanent solutions to slavery in mind, not 'anchor' babies (which is, I believe, a fair description of the intent to have them born here.)

The 2 part test was designed to create a catch 22, in which any official recognition of a black person served the purpose of distinguishing him as a citizen. The jurisdictional clause is a guarantee of rights, or, more to the point, a prevention from stripping the rights of a person. In order for the state to claim jursidiction over someone born or naturalized, they had to recognize that such a person had the rights of a citizen. This was a two fold test PRECISELY BECAUSE the original writers felt that Jus Soli was not sufficient to prevent abuse of the intent. And just as it is a double protection that ensures citizenship, the converse is true, it's a double protection that DEFINES citizenship.

To read the 14th the way you describe above is to completely rob it of its ORIGINAL INTENT: and that intent was the permanent reversal of the 3/5ths designation within the original Constitution. No, the issue at original hand dealt w/ the jurisdictional status of people born on this soil.

You even recognize this when you point out the exceptions: children of foreign diplomats, etc. They don't have the right of citizenship by birth because of specific jurisdictional limitations. The two concepts, they go hand in hand.

Your attempt to porifice the language into two clauses is not on point to original intent. Can you provide any case law, at all, to show that this was the intent, or any support or rationale as to why the original need was such that making a distinction between birth and naturalization (as opposed to them being a single concept within the wording) was on point to the intent?

Here are two Surpreme Court cases that DIRECTLY link the concept of jurisdiction as an additive concept to birth, as a 2 fold test.

1. YOU pointed out Wong Kim ARK - and the issues that dealt with what 'jursidiction' meant in THAT case turned on his BIRTH here, not a case of naturalization. Wong Kim ARK granted citizenship BECAUSE the legal right to be here conferred jurisdiction. And Wong Kim ARK established the standard that birth PLUS the jurisdictional right to be here = citizenship. Wong Kim ARK established that the 14th was designed to be a two-fold test.

2. Elk v. Wilkins, which denied citizenship to Indians prior to the Congress passing the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, turned on 'jurisdiction' in relationship to birth. Elk v. Wilkins also applied the two part test, and DENIED citizenship to those born here ON THE GROUNDS that gov't treaties with Indians created a separate jurisdictional authority on Indian lands.

The original intent and relevant case law deny your linguistical parsing. The phrase is (born or naturalized) AND subject to jurisdiction.

~faith,

Timothy.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Aug 31, 2006

Of course, I submit that under current regulations, the children of illegals born here ARE citizens. I never said otherwise.

And while I believe Congress can act and change that, they haven't yet.

Also, while the Supreme Cabal has ruled in the past that citizenship can be revoked if obtained by fraud, in reality, it is a practical impossibility to determine intent ex post facto.

And because the prior ruling dealth w/ naturalizations and not birth, I wouldn't be convinced that the Supreme Cabal would uphold revoking citizenship after the fact.

So, every baby born here to be an anchor, well remain so. In reality, any Congressional action could only affect future births.

~faith,

Timothy.

TheCommuter, BSN, RN · Aug 31, 2006

The term "Anchor Baby" is both offensive and racist and is on a par with the phrase "welfare queen."

You're the only poster who is mentioning racism in this thread. These 'anchor babies' could be born to parents from Iceland, Rwanda, Japan, Colombia, Canada, or any other nation. My post never mantioned any particular country or 'race' of people.

However, most of the people here possess enough common sense to know that the U.S. doesn't have an illegal immigration crisis regarding the Icelandics, Rwandans, Japanese, Colombians, or Canadians. Always keep in mind that illegal immigrants can hail from any nation.

TheCommuter, BSN, RN · Aug 31, 2006

Keep in mind that this Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments and had drawing permanent solutions to slavery in mind, not 'anchor' babies (which is, I believe, a fair description of the intent to have them born here.)

Thank you. :thankya:

cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN · Aug 31, 2006

I can't even see how the term 'anchor' baby is racist. :confused: And yes, plenty of people do come up from the southern border who aren't Mexicans. In fact, one of my hispanic family members works for Border Patrol, and his job is to take these illegal immigrants back to the countries that they originally hail from. He's been arounnd the world...Soon, it will be the terrorists from assorted middle east countries who recognize the gaping entry hole into the US-if they haven't already.

That's a whole 'nother problem.

Here in Southern Az, if Border Patrol finds an illegal immigrant woman in labor, she is rushed emergently to the nearest emergency room-in Mexico.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 1, 2006

I based the analysis on a careful reading of the clause. The clause does not say persons born OF naturalized citizens it says OR. Congressman Bingham one of the original authors of the amendment appears from my cursory reading to have been a very strong proponent of equal protection of persons through the constitution. While the 14th is a "reconstruction amendment" it was not written to address civil rights of only people of color but instead says any person. Given that the court ruled decisively in Wong Kim Ark that persons born in the US are citizens regardless of their parents citizenship status the idea of a 2 step test for citizenship eligibility for "native born" children is simply incorrect.

The Constitution is essentially silent about definitive rules of citizenship with the following exception:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Under the powers of Congress article the following was written:

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Arguably the Congress attempted to do this through statute in the decades between the adoption of the Constitution and ratification of the 14th Amendment. With the passage by Congress and ratification by the states of the 14th amendment in essence a political agreement was forged that left the laws of Naturalization for the non-native born with the Congress but stated definitively any person born on US territory was to be considered a citizen. The 14th amendment expanded the protections of the constitution as to due process to all persons in each of the states and forbade the states from abridging the rights of citizens. If the framers of the 14th had wanted to define that children born in the US had to be the children of native born or legally naturalized citizens they would have said "any person born of Naturalized" but they did not they used the word "or." In the end the amendment was written to guarantee citizenship rights for persons born here and those Naturalized per congressional statute.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Sep 1, 2006

Here in Southern Az, if Border Patrol finds an illegal immigrant woman in labor, she is rushed emergently to the nearest emergency room-in Mexico.

The child is then not a citizen because they were not born in the US.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Sep 1, 2006

I based the analysis on a careful reading of the clause. The clause does not say persons born OF naturalized citizens it says OR. Congressman Bingham one of the original authors of the amendment appears from my cursory reading to have been a very strong proponent of equal protection of persons through the constitution. While the 14th is a "reconstruction amendment" it was not written to address civil rights of only people of color but instead says any person. Given that the court ruled decisively in Wong Kim Ark that persons born in the US are citizens regardless of their parents citizenship status the idea of a 2 step test for citizenship eligibility for "native born" children is simply incorrect.
The Constitution is essentially silent about definitive rules of citizenship with the following exception:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Under the powers of Congress article the following was written:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Arguably the Congress attempted to do this through statute in the decades between the adoption of the Constitution and ratification of the 14th Amendment. With the passage by Congress and ratification by the states of the 14th amendment in essence a political agreement was forged that left the laws of Naturalization for the non-native born with the Congress but stated definitively any person born on US territory was to be considered a citizen. The 14th amendment expanded the protections of the constitution as to due process to all persons in each of the states and forbade the states from abridging the rights of citizens. If the framers of the 14th had wanted to define that children born in the US had to be the children of native born or legally naturalized citizens they would have said "any person born of Naturalized" but they did not they used the word "or." In the end the amendment was written to guarantee citizenship rights for persons born here and those Naturalized per congressional statute.

While you are correct that Wong Kim ARK granted citizenship despite the citizenship status of the parents, it WAS NOT despite the LEGAL status of the parents. In fact, the Supremes BASED their decision on the fact that both parts of the two part test were met BECAUSE the parents were here legally. The ruling has been used multiple times to uphold citizenship status of children born to non-citizens that are legally here.

In fact, if you don't like the term 'anchor' baby, you'll love the term, 'tourist birthing', where rich classes from some abroad nations, Korea is a prime example, plan vacations here during their due dates in order to give their children the dual citizenship status that allows them to avoid conscription in their home countries. And, not only is it legal, the US will not deny a VISA, even if that's the reason given for coming.

And in Elk v. Wilkins, the Supremes decided just the opposite of Kim Wong ARK, and again, BIRTH was not at issue, JURISDICTION was.

And regarding Congressional Powers, you are just bolstering the argument that Congress has the domain to change this regulation, and such a change would not merit Constitutional challenge.

~faith,

Timothy.

TheCommuter, BSN, RN · Sep 1, 2006

The child is then not a citizen because they were not born in the US.

The Border Patrol is purposely rushing the pregnant, laboring woman to a hospital located south of the U.S. border so that the infant won't be born on U.S. soil and, therefore, won't become another U.S. citizen by default (a.k.a. 'anchor baby').