“The wise know their weakness too well to assume infallibility; and he who knows most, knows best how little he knows.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Some people believe that “aliens” born in the United States have some claim of U.S. citizenship. This is the rule of jus soli birth over the right of parentage or nationality, being jus sanguinis. Jus soli citizenship is of a feudal origin and inherently claims bodies for taxation and other matters of servitude.
Let us get this one straight right out of the gate: Pursuant to law, there are no “Anchor Babies”. Why this issue even exists is truly beyond comprehension. In part, perhaps it stems from articles such as one noted by Charles Wood.1 He opens up such noted article by stating the following:
“Every year, hundreds of thousands of children are born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers. Most likely, there are over 1,000 born every day. Under current law, each one of them becomes a U.S. citizen at birth.”
Really? Under current law they become U.S. citizens at birth? At that point Wood cites no “law”. Author Wood then goes on to say,
“Under the prevailing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a change would require a constitutional amendment. It is likely that this interpretation is wrong and a change may be made by statute. But one way or the other, change is imperative because current law causes serious harm to the national interest.”
Really? Under the prevailing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment… What prevailing interpretation is that? Again, Wood cites no “law”. What he may be suggesting is that there is some kind of “Judicial Activism” 2 or a concept called “Living Constitution” 3 being present.
Those who advocate “anchor babies” use misapplied and/or obsolete case law as a tool, such as the case of Wong Kim Ark.4 Here the court rendered an opinion based on vague language that is found in Section 1 of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” Like other provisions in the “original” Constitution, this instant case illustrates the faults of a system that failed from the beginning. Matters got even worse when the original governmental system was subverted after the Civil War (so-called). Such vagueness notwithstanding, there are simple points that rectify such faults.
I will provide to you a couple of factors that illustrate why this issue should not even exist. Which begs the question, How competent are the lawyers and judges involved in these cases? As I am one that does not believe in gray area, I venture that there is some kind of orchestrated plot being formulated. Through the years, from what I have observed and researched this is how things are accomplished. The same methods were used to get the Fourteenth Amendment installed. Simply, case law is established which then brings about desired legislative change. Accordingly, it should be noted that Wood suggests either legislation or constitutional alteration be made to rectify the problem, which should not even exist in the first place.
1 Losing Control of the Nation’s Future – Part Two – Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens
4 United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Before the simple logic of putting this issue to an end is evidenced, this issue was recently addressed in a Bill that was submitted to Congress by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia as H.R.1868 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.5 The Open Congress Summary on this particular Bill is as follows:
“This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen. Under the bill, only children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident, or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military would be considered citizens.”
All fine and good. It is a great idea to have clarification on issues that are somewhat vague in nature, but with a little effort this issue is not even an issue. There is a principle used to resolve such issues: Intent. Perhaps one tool that could have been utilized early on is the congressional records on the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. In debate of the vague amendment, Senator Jacob Howard stated the following in regard to the clause found in the amendment “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ”:
“Every 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.”
Huh? What a bunch of Gobbledygook. Foreigners (aliens) who were dignitaries were not to be included in the confusing “born” language of the 14th Amendment… but everyone else was? But wait. Not Indians.
Now onto using some applied logic in regard to other legislation that defeats the “anchor baby” issue. In the original Constitution, being separate nations, the Indian tribes of America were not included in the agreement instituted by the several states, i.e., The Constitution. The interesting language found in the document referred to them as “Indians not taxed”.6 Such language being interesting as it shows the intent of the beloved Constitution’s purpose: TO TAX. Due to eliminating the head tax of Article I (and soon to be replaced with Marxist Income Tax), this exact same language appeared in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment; thus maintaining such peoples were still not party to that agreement, i.e., The Constitution.
After some time Congress wanted to bring such peoples into the sheepfold. Accordingly the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (the “Snyder Act”)7 granted U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples found within the territories known as the several states. Now here is the simple logic: If these peoples who were living within the territories of the several states had to have legislation that granted them citizenship, why in the world would anyone think that someone from a country outside the United States would have a birthright citizenship? 8 Mind you, the “Indians” noted had more connection to the land to claim birth status than “aliens” do. That is undoubtedly a deathblow in regard to the “anchor babies” fantasy.
Now, it is not rocket science to understand those concepts; but for whatever reasons there appears to be some kind of confusion as to the issue of so-called “Anchor Babies”. Again, I submit to you to bring into question the competency, or the seditious actions, of a plethora of lawyers and judges. The plot to which they are party to is: World Communism. The fact is, you cannot have the principles of this venture without destroying countries and nationalities through creating dual citizenships and other commie measures.
~ References and Additional Information ~
• Fourteenth Amendment: https://14thamendment.us
• The Red Amendment: https://redamendment.net
5 See: https://congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/1868 Congress rejected this act to clarify the atrocity.
6 United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2
8 See also the people of Puerto Rico being granted citizenship as a foreign people, Title 8 USC Sec. 1402
Written and © by L.B. Bork and published by the People’s Awareness Coalition
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml