14th Amendment does not recognize anchor babies.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!
    06/25/97 Committee on the Judiciary - Erler Statement

    This quoted material is in the public domian:


    Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States":
    [E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
    Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to "ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Howard knew, as his reference to natural law indicates, that the republican basis for citizenship is consent. This is the natural law principle of the Declaration of Independence that proclaims that legitimate governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    113,914
    113
    Michiana
    Everyone knows who it was meant for. It was to keep the freed slaves and their offspring from being disenfranchised (I hope that didn't violate the rule on racial posting). But as is typical the interpretation became something much larger than what was intended.
     

    BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!
    Everyone knows who it was meant for. It was to keep the freed slaves and their offspring from being disenfranchised (I hope that didn't violate the rule on racial posting). But as is typical the interpretation became something much larger than what was intended.

    Exactly.
    Those who are out there calling for the removal of the 14th or a new amendment, need to demand that the 14th is followed by it's original intent.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,218
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    I read an article by Ann Coulter in Human Events. She said in 1982 Justice William Brennan "slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe asserting that 'no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful' (Other, of course, than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)"
     

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    I'm still wondering what enumerated power Congress claims allows it to restrict immigration at all.

    Don't give me that nonsensical commerce clause crap, either. That ship has sailed.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,218
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    I'm still wondering what enumerated power Congress claims allows it to restrict immigration at all.

    Don't give me that nonsensical commerce clause crap, either. That ship has sailed.

    I'm sure there's something. After all, if there were no legal restrictions to immigration, under your apparent scenario what would prevent, say the 10, 14, 17, 19, & 25 Chinese People's Armies from sailing over here and landing at various places on the coast, claiming they were "immigrating"...
     

    SemperFiUSMC

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2009
    3,480
    38
    I'm still wondering what enumerated power Congress claims allows it to restrict immigration at all.

    Don't give me that nonsensical commerce clause crap, either. That ship has sailed.

    Article 1, Section 8

    ...

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...

    You'll take a whole class on the Constitution in law school.
     
    Top Bottom