Search
Forum Home | Login
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37

America needs a NEW Constitutional Amendment!

No More Anchor Babies

June 27, 2007 2:03:47 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Anchor babies have long been a sneaky way for Illegal Aliens to break the law by coming across the border Pregnant and give birth in America so the baby become a citizen taking advantage of the fourteenth Amendment.

It shows their contempt for America and her laws by taking advantage, having a BABY WHICH AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A CITIZEN, and allows the Illegals to stay so we do not break the family up.

ENOUGH I SAY! We need to Amend the fourteenth Amendment and stop giving Citizenship to babies of illegal Aliens, forcing them to leave, this madness must stop. Put this to a vote to the American People. Let the people decide if we want this archaic law to continue. The law was written after the Dredd Scott decision, making sure that slaves born in America were citizens of the country, it has outlived its usefulness.

I for one would vote that we ban this law and send the entire family back to where they came from no matter when it is.

Enough of these escape clauses for Illegal aliens to take advantage of. Enough of fair play, for they do not play fair. they lie, cheat, SOME STEAL and still they get to reap the benefits of American citizenship while not being citizens! Enough is enough already! it is time to stand up and say if you are not going to come to America Legally, you will be deported, if you get caught a second time you will be sent to prison, then deported. To many Illegals are using this Amendment to weasel their way into America to stay, and they are taught how to use this by the Mexican Government to top it off.

Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
3 Pages1 2 3 
Moderateman
Demosthenes Locke
Join Date 09/2004
0
Reply #1 June 27, 2007 2:40:48 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"Enough of these escape clauses for Illegal aliens to take advantage of. Enough of fair play, for they do not play fair. they lie, cheat, SOME STEAL and still they get to reap the benefits of American citizenship while not being citizens!"

Interesting to read this today, as I have just begun reading the Sword of Truth seris by Terry Goodkind, and it reminded me of a passage from yesterday. The crux of the argument was that the aggressor chooses the rules of the conflict, and it is the other's job to deal with the conflict under those conditions. Wishing or pretending While some may not like the comparison of illegal immigrants to aggressors, it is an apt comparison. It does still involve taking something through illicit means.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #2 June 27, 2007 3:05:58 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply By: Demosthenes LockePosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
"Enough of these escape clauses for Illegal aliens to take advantage of. Enough of fair play, for they do not play fair. they lie, cheat, SOME STEAL and still they get to reap the benefits of American citizenship while not being citizens!"

Interesting to read this today, as I have just begun reading the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind, and it reminded me of a passage from yesterday. The crux of the argument was that the aggressor chooses the rules of the conflict, and it is the other's job to deal with the conflict under those conditions. Wishing or pretending While some may not like the comparison of illegal immigrants to aggressors, it is an apt comparison. It does still involve taking something through illicit means

you write so well, deep thoughts and put to cyber paper so succinctly, I agree naturally, but that's because it seems you agree with with my premise too.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #3 June 27, 2007 3:42:46 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Amendment XIV: 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."


An "anchor baby" is a person born in the United States to illegal alien parents. It is thought that, because the baby was born in the U.S. it is automatically a citizen, so the parents should be able to stay in the U.S. also.

Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they are (in fact) in the country illegally and while they should be treated with basic human rights, they have no more right to be in the US than I have sleeping in your mayor's office.

Since the parents have no right to be in the US... neither do their kids.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Adventure-Dude
Join Date 07/2004
+40
Reply #4 June 27, 2007 4:19:12 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they are (in fact) in the country illegally and while they should be treated with basic human rights, they have no more right to be in the US than I have sleeping in your mayor's office.

Since the parents have no right to be in the US... neither do their kids.


Ted, you beat me to it. Maybe we need a clarification added as the 'interpretation' on it has been TOOO loose. Illegal = No Rights as citizen
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #5 June 27, 2007 4:20:21 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
(Citizen)ParaTed2kJune 27, 2007 15:42:46Reply


Amendment XIV: 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."


An "anchor baby" is a person born in the United States to illegal alien parents. It is thought that, because the baby was born in the U.S. it is automatically a citizen, so the parents should be able to stay in the U.S. also.

Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they are (in fact) in the country illegally and while they should be treated with basic human rights, they have no more right to be in the US than I have sleeping in your mayor's office.

Since the parents have no right to be in the US... neither do their kids.


yep that is how it should be, but it is not, have an child born in America no matter how you got here and the child is a citizen, and the parents get to stay so the family will not be broken up. Shoot I say deport them all, but changing the Amendment will work for me just fine.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #6 June 27, 2007 4:25:39 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Reply By: Dr Guy Posted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007

It is a good thing that after writing this

Especially what the "Bill of Rights" and the other ammendments are about. They are never about taking away the rights of citizens.

You then state:

When we outlawed booze with the 18th ammendment.

Which does contradict your first statement above.  Amendments to the constitution are not constrained by the intent of the Bill Of Rights (to control government).  INdeed, as we have seen, they can be used to restrict our rights (second statement above).

But the one thing a "law" cannot do that an amendment can do - is change the constitution.  IN the debate that MM started, the wording in the constitution is fairly clear.  You are born here, you are a citizen.  And no law can take that right away.  Only an amendment can do that.

There is one other thing an amendment can do that a "law" cannot.  It cannot be over turned by some monkeys in black robes.  It, not the courts, are the final say in the law of the land.

Although you left this in another article, what you say fits right in here doc g good work,. Great definition of what I wrote, I put it simply enough "amend the 14th amendment" but some choose to read what is not there, good work putting it in SIMPLE terms.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #7 June 27, 2007 4:29:02 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply By: Adventure-DudePosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they are (in fact) in the country illegally and while they should be treated with basic human rights, they have no more right to be in the US than I have sleeping in your mayor's office.

Since the parents have no right to be in the US... neither do their kids.


Ted, you beat me to it. Maybe we need a clarification added as the 'interpretation' on it has been TOOO loose. Illegal = No Rights as citizen

heck giving rights that are met for American Citizens to Illegal Aliens are just scratching the surface, the loonie left wants to give American citizen rights to terrorists captured on the field of battle.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #8 June 27, 2007 4:31:39 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

MM:

yep that is how it should be, but it is not, have an child born in America no matter how you got here and the child is a citizen, and the parents get to stay so the family will not be broken up. Shoot I say deport them all, but changing the Amendment will work for me just fine.

That is only the way it is because we let those ignorant of the U.S. Constitution continue in their ignorance.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Jythier
Join Date 02/2003
+52
Reply #9 June 27, 2007 4:32:06 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I have an idea. Let's let the babies of illegal aliens be citizens, but only once they have reached the age of majority. That way, there's nothing to keep them in here. In order to become a citizen at that time, the baby must have been registered on a 'future citizens' list, which will allow them to return in time. However, as soon as they are registered, we deport the whole family. If the baby is found in the US illegally at any age he is taken off the list immediately.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #10 June 27, 2007 4:34:40 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Ok idea Jythier, but I'd rather go with the U.S. Constitution as it is written.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Jythier
Join Date 02/2003
+52
Reply #11 June 27, 2007 4:47:26 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Well, yeah, but.. why? Change is good as long as it doesn't affect me. The original constitution is so old and musty. They could not have predicted that everyone in Mexico would want to have their babies in the US just so they could stay. Back then, they couldn't even travel that far without forgetting where they lived!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Adventure-Dude
Join Date 07/2004
+40
Reply #12 June 27, 2007 4:56:51 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
They could not have predicted that everyone in Mexico would want to have their babies in the US just so they could stay.


This wasn't true until someone decided to change the interpretation.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #13 June 27, 2007 4:58:16 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
(Citizen)ParaTed2kJune 27, 2007 16:31:39


MM: yep that is how it should be, but it is not, have an child born in America no matter how you got here and the child is a citizen, and the parents get to stay so the family will not be broken up. Shoot I say deport them all, but changing the Amendment will work for me just fine.

That is only the way it is because we let those ignorant of the U.S. Constitution continue in their ignorance.


I have been crying for the loss of the America I knew, this NEW America I have to live in is fast becoming a country I really as starting to not care for to much. BUT it is still the best country on the planet.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #14 June 27, 2007 4:59:51 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
(Citizen)JythierJune 27, 2007 16:32:06


I have an idea. Let's let the babies of illegal aliens be citizens, but only once they have reached the age of majority. That way, there's nothing to keep them in here. In order to become a citizen at that time, the baby must have been registered on a 'future citizens' list, which will allow them to return in time. However, as soon as they are registered, we deport the whole family. If the baby is found in the US illegally at any age he is taken off the list immediately.


see the problem with that is it would be a LAW, and some liberal knee jerk bleeding heart could over turn it with just the signing of a pen saying "it's unconstitutional"
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #15 June 27, 2007 5:01:39 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
(Citizen)ParaTed2kJune 27, 2007 16:34:40


Ok idea Jythier, but I'd rather go with the U.S. Constitution as it is written.


me too , or AMENDED. WE have amended the constitution before, we can do it again, I say the Politicians should put it to the American people and see what happens.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #16 June 27, 2007 5:03:47 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
(Citizen)JythierJune 27, 2007 16:47:26


Well, yeah, but.. why? Change is good as long as it doesn't affect me. The original constitution is so old and musty. They could not have predicted that everyone in Mexico would want to have their babies in the US just so they could stay. Back then, they couldn't even travel that far without forgetting where they lived!


agreed. But the 14th Amendment was written to Protect SLAVES and it was a damned good amendment for then, but the fathers of the country left open the idea things could or would change hence the Amendments.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #17 June 27, 2007 5:10:09 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Although you left this in another article, what you say fits right in here doc g good work,. Great definition of what I wrote, I put it simply enough "amend the 14th amendment" but some choose to read what is not there, good work putting it in SIMPLE terms.


I read your article (obviously), but had not really formulated a response, as I think that an amendment to the constitution is a very serious thing and used too often for frivolous reasons (the ERA comes to mind). I am not sure that I would want to change it in this situation, as I have not thought through all the ramifications as of yet
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #18 June 27, 2007 5:14:26 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof",


That phrase has nothing to do with "being lawful", but was put in there to include the parts of the country (at the time) that were not states, but territories of the states (Ohio being one as it was a part of Virginia).

Thus that is of no help. The phrase was being used to declare that residents of Ohio were citizens by virtue of being ruled by Virginia law.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Jythier
Join Date 02/2003
+52
Reply #19 June 27, 2007 5:15:23 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
They made an Amendment regarding baseball statistics?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Jythier
Join Date 02/2003
+52
Reply #20 June 27, 2007 5:19:13 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are on US soil. As are their babies. In hand jurisdiction, I believe it's called.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #21 June 27, 2007 5:20:37 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
They made an Amendment regarding baseball statistics?


100 years before the game was invented! See how far sighted they were?
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #22 June 27, 2007 6:31:57 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Dr. Guy:
That phrase has nothing to do with "being lawful", but was put in there to include the parts of the country (at the time) that were not states, but territories of the states (Ohio being one as it was a part of Virginia).

Thus that is of no help. The phrase was being used to declare that residents of Ohio were citizens by virtue of being ruled by Virginia law.


That would make sense, and probably is part of it, but to see the full meaning you have to look back to who wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Indians weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their tribes.

Slaves weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their owners.

Endentured servants weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their "sponsors" until their debt was worked off.

Those who fell behind in their debts weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of those they owed money too.

With few exceptions, women weren't, they were subject to the jurisdiction of their fathers and husbands.

On the other hand, diplomats, soldiers, and other government sponsored travellers were "subject to the jurisdiction" in any nation that recognized the U.S.

It did matter where you lived, but what mattered even more is that you were a free person. Those who weren't had few "rights" other than what was granted them by those whose jurisdiction they were subject to.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #23 June 27, 2007 7:05:26 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
It did matter where you lived, but what mattered even more is that you were a free person. Those who weren't had few "rights" other than what was granted them by those whose jurisdiction they were subject to.


All that is true. However, I think you are not going to find a court that agrees with you as the context it is written in clearly is indicating where (other places mentioned who).
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #24 June 27, 2007 8:01:24 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Although you left this in another article, what you say fits right in here doc g good work,. Great definition of what I wrote, I put it simply enough "amend the 14th amendment" but some choose to read what is not there, good work putting it in SIMPLE terms.


I read your article (obviously), but had not really formulated a response, as I think that an amendment to the constitution is a very serious thing and used too often for frivolous reasons (the ERA comes to mind). I am not sure that I would want to change it in this situation, as I have not thought through all the ramifications as of yet

I dunno doc 27 I think Amendments in 225 or so years ain't playing fast and lose.

I believe we need this new Amendment to stop the country from being taken over by folks that have an allegiance to another country, shown by the waving of the other countries flag at rallies to demand American citizenship. Please!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Moderateman
Moderateman
Join Date 11/2004
+37
Reply #25 June 28, 2007 11:00:12 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Dr. Guy:
That phrase has nothing to do with "being lawful", but was put in there to include the parts of the country (at the time) that were not states, but territories of the states (Ohio being one as it was a part of Virginia).

Thus that is of no help. The phrase was being used to declare that residents of Ohio were citizens by virtue of being ruled by Virginia law.


That would make sense, and probably is part of it, but to see the full meaning you have to look back to who wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Indians weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their tribes.

Slaves weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their owners.

Endentured servants weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their "sponsors" until their debt was worked off.

Those who fell behind in their debts weren't, they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of those they owed money too.

With few exceptions, women weren't, they were subject to the jurisdiction of their fathers and husbands.

On the other hand, diplomats, soldiers, and other government sponsored travellers were "subject to the jurisdiction" in any nation that recognized the U.S.

It did matter where you lived, but what mattered even more is that you were a free person. Those who weren't had few "rights" other than what was granted them by those whose jurisdiction they were subject to.

Boy do you know your history or what? good points ted, and thank you for the contribution to my article.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
3 Pages1 2 3 
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Stardock Entertainment

Press | Support
Copyright © 2026 Stardock Entertainment. The Political Machine is a trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved.