Anchor Babies’ Scam and the 14th Amendment

This video by Dr. Turley is quite succinct about the issues surrounding the latest Trump kerfluffle. Make no mistake: while Trump’s announcements may look random, they’re not. Unlike his tweets, his public announcements are part of his larger design to put a halt to the depredations he sees being inflicted on the U.S.

This time, we have President Trump’s announcement about his decision to sign an Executive Order doing away with the concept of anchor babies as a way to get a toehold in the U.S. If you listen carefully you can hear leftist heads exploding from coast to coast.

Dr. Turley provides a brief explanation of the origin of the 14th Amendment and its later abuse by “open borders” advocates. He enlarges the picture to include Europe, pointing to Denmark as leading the charge for welfare “chauvinism” – i.e., that benefits belong first of all to citizens, not to immigrants. [To Danes: please walk across the bridge and tell that to Sweden.]

This latest announcement by President Trump simply follows up on his promise during the primaries to end the whole anchor baby scam. He and Jeb Bush went toe-to-toe in this conflict of ideologies. This new announcement – that he’ll sign an Executive Order ending it – now comes during the last week of the mid-terms. The timing is on purpose.

No wonder there is growing interest about Trump among the black populace. They have been the big losers in the immigration scuffles. Perhaps the Dems thought they had “the black vote” sewed up, thus making it safe for them to promote the new victims…Trump is about to change that, has already changed it. Whether the change makes a difference in the outcomes of the mid-term elections remains to be seen.

23 thoughts on “Anchor Babies’ Scam and the 14th Amendment

  1. The 14th amendment states in part: “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.”

    Trump cannot change the fact that persons born in the US are US citizens. That would take a Constitutional amendment. However, the anchor baby concept is only a policy decision. There is nothing in the US Constitution or in US law that allows the parents or family of such a person to stay in the USA. Trump can change this policy. He can simply say that the parents will not be allowed to stay. The parents can chose to take their children with them when they are deported or put them up for adoption. This would end the “anchor baby” scam.

    • Trump cannot change the fact that persons born in the US are US citizens.

      But he has the bully pulpit which will put this to the test. Cuz you can bet the Supremes will be considering the birth of the 14th Amendment and what it was meant to accomplish.

      That would take a Constitutional amendment. However, the anchor baby concept is only a policy decision. There is nothing in the US Constitution or in US law that allows the parents or family of such a person to stay in the USA. Trump can change this policy. He can simply say that the parents will not be allowed to stay. The parents can chose to take their children with them when they are deported or put them up for adoption. This would end the “anchor baby” scam.

      Indeed it would. Trump almost looks like Solomon here: parents would be forced to decide whether or not their scam was worth the effort.

      The 14th was designed to address the problem of ex-slaves as citizens with voting rights. No one ever dreamed (to coin a phrase) that it would be used so cynically.

      • It might be a good idea to reread, or read, or listen to, the segment on which you’re commenting.
        Here’s another reference.

        This historical context, including actual speeches by the writers of the 14th amendment, show clearly the simply being born on US territory did not qualify one for citizenship. The person’s parents had to be US citizens or legal residents under some kind of immigration allowance.

        Since there is no law or court ruling, or Constitutional provision mandating that children of illegal aliens or tourists become US citizens, the granting of citizenship was obviously an executive action. Just as obviously, the President is the head of the Executive branch of government, so he is absolutely within his authority to order a change in a procedure that is not required by law or legal ruling.

    • BTW, the urban myth has it that none of the states that had been part of the Confederacy ratified the 14th Amendment, only the northern states, which outnumbered the south 2 to 1 did.

      • “BTW, the urban myth has it that none of the states that had been part of the Confederacy ratified the 14th Amendment, only the northern states, which outnumbered the south 2 to 1 did.”

        If only the Northern states, which constituted 2/3 of all the states, ratified the 14th amendment, then the 14th Amendment was never adopted, because a 3/4 vote of all state legislators is required.

    • As the Duke of Wellington once said “You can be born in a stable but it doesn’t make you a horse”. Seemingly in reply to being questioned on his birth in Ireland.

    • “Trump cannot change the fact that persons born in the US are US citizens.”

      The ‘fact’ you stated is, in fact, NOT a fact. Persons born in the US of illegal aliens are themselves illegal aliens. That is a FACT. Under the original intent and actual wording of the 14th Amendment, they are most assuredly NOT citizens of the US. They are citizens of the country that their illegal alien parents came from. That is another FACT.

      Trump does not need to change anything. He only needs to get the ball rolling for the Supreme Court to take up the issue. If the Supremes rule according to the actual original intent of the Authors of the amendment, which is KNOWN, then they will necessarily rule that anchor babies are NOT citizens of this country.

    • “Trump cannot change the fact that persons born in the US are US citizens.”

      Prior to 1924, several million Native Americans would have laughed at you for saying that.

  2. Considering how the leftists and criminals have no problem walking over every other amendment, the 14th is irrelevant, the only question is whether or not Trump will get his way. If he does, this will be the first time i’ve believed in him again for awhile after seeing too many poor judgement calls, backpedaling, and compromises.

    Trump never was a civil liberties president, and there are dangers this way – ideally these problems should have been solved “the right way” but when total racketeering and infiltration has corrupted every other level of govt right now it only seems down to either he wins this round or he loses this round, if he wins it maybe there’s a chance he wins some of the next big ones. Like REMOVING FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED CITIZENSHIP. Laws can’t be retroactively enforced, but everything is open to interpretation – this is not creating a new law and retroactively enforcing it, this is recognizing stolen citizenship = stolen property = improperly obtained in the first place, meaning a KNOWN fraudulent claim is no longer being indulged.

    Besides which the ‘patriot act’ and other crap already allegedly wipes out pretty much the entire constitution anyways, it makes no sense to pick and choose whats going to be followed if he’s going the emergency powers route. The only question is whether he can stop the takeover of the country from the toilet flushing north.

    This really isn’t about a “wall”, this is about removing the benefits that people get whether they scale the wall or dont. Remove the anchor baby nonsense, then remove all of the benefits illegals get, and THEY WONT COME NORTH TO BEGIN WITH. You wont even need a wall for 90% of the problems. (though it might be beneficial to have one anyways) Furthermore, remove the ongoing indulgence of fraud, where people for decades AUTOMATICALLY got citizenship for their kids, and you’ll solve 90% of the “demographic takeover bomb” where the left has for years imported third world populations to vote socialist to rob everyone else.

    This does NOT have to be a humanitarian nightmare, and I don’t for a moment believe that everyone, bar none, who is already in this country should have their citizenship removed simply because of the crimes of their parents. Some of those people are republicans and Trump voters, even if statistically most of them are not which is why they were brought here. Rather what needs to happen is #1 everyone who “came here illegally and stole a citizenship for their kids” needs to be put under review. #2 if all they are is multigenerational gang bangers and losers, REMOVE the citizenship of actual troublemakers but if they aren’t troublemakers LET THEM STAY because realistically they have nowhere to go – that’s the humanitarian nightmare. If they want to vote like dirtbags, that’s what were really mad about, the imported vote machine takeover so remove that ability – but lets not turn this into the atrocity that will energize the left. LET THEM STAY just not as citizens but rather as authorized residents, and have a road back to citizenship if they actually learn about this country and go through all the hoops legal people do.

    There are things that have to be done to retake this country, that does not require the right to “make itself into the kind of monster the left accuses it of being” or you’ll lose many of the hearts and minds of the young. Use it as an opportunity to prove that the left are a bunch of liars by NOT having the worst outcome.

    • You’re proposing a type of apartheid, where a large group of people live in a country but do not have proportional political representation.

      I actually have nothing against that type of arrangement, except for the Parkinson’s corollary to the Parkinson Principle. The corollary is that whatever rights are granted to the aristocracy eventually filter down to the commoner. In other words, filling up your country with people who would vote leftist if they could, will eventually result in great pressures to allow these people to vote (leftist).

      It’s true that welfare and other goodies serve as a powerful magnet for illegal, legal, or whatever other type of immigration. So, withdrawing these benefits will probably result in significantly less immigration. Maybe. However, again using Parkinson’s corollary, as long as you have these people inside your borders in a significant number, you’ll eventually get a great political pressure to extend universal welfare.

      You also want to remove the troublemakers. Very good. But the devil is always in the details, and whatever mechanism you create for choosing those to be removed, and how to remove them, is going to be subject to dilution, corruption, and plain bureaucratic inefficiencies.

      As far as removing people who are only familiar with the US, I think of the parents, who made the choice to come over illegally from their culture, and the kids they dragged with them, who also had to adopt to a new culture. Having been put through the experience once by their “parents”, we should now sh0w more consideration to these “kids” than their parents did, and spare them from the trauma of having to adjust to a new culture.

      • I’m just proposing an enforcement of the law of the land in a way which is less harsh than it has to be, courts have the option to show some mercy, and being harsh only energizes the middle to swing left at times. The far left will call it “ethnic cleansing” to get rid of illegals no matter what you do, even if they are all gang bangers or there were white people from russia or anything else, but I see no reason to throw gasoline on the fire. “Send them all back” is not that viable when the countries they came from wont even take them back most of the time, let alone kids of parents who werent born in the original country and aren’t citizens there either.

        Would the children be better off as stateless persons or as a nonvoting class, who if they educate themself and pass citizenship tests, can earn their citizenship which their parents had no legal right to give them, any more than a parent who steals a Rolls Royce and gives it to their kids should be able to use the argument that it’s hard for the kids to do without a Rolls Royce because they’re so used to it now after decades of nonenforcement of whose property it originally was.

        Who do we NOT want to vote – communist or terrorist indoctrinated criminal losers whose parents broke into the country and stole a citizenship.

        Simply giving them citizenship means we have to put up with a level of crap we otherwise wouldn’t when the country is bankrupt to the tune of trillions anyways right now.

        Simply throwing them out of the country makes them stateless persons because some parent who came here 20 years ago, their kids aren’t honduran citizens or anything else anymore that i’m aware of.

        Creating a class where the truly ungrateful troublemakers are easier to control, yet those showing any sense of merit or understanding or respect for our culture is an act of kindness not cruelty, when the law strictly interpreted probably just says throw them all out and damn the consequences.

        The only way to prevent the outcome of the “nonvoting class” of illegals starts demanding “political rights” is probably to throw them out for sedition. Even that is less cruel than forcing everyone out wholesale. Shutting the hell up politically but having a chance is a better fate than being forced back to some narco-terror state south of the border. Those who don’t see it that way can best learn the lesson by being returned to their true cultural home in the narco-terror state of their original origin. If were so weak we allow ourselves to be pushed around by cultures that literally HATE America and American values then we deserve to end up like California anyways. What’s needed is a great sorting, just evicting people for the crimes their parents did is not fair, let the kids decide with their actions.

        • Your position is certainly logical and rational. I can think of worse plans to try, although it may not work out the way you expect.

          The crux of it is, you have to give bureaucrats a great deal of arbitrary power, to decide who is truly grateful and non-disruptive, and who is ungrateful enough that they should be shipped back to their country of citizenship. And in most cases, the children of illegal aliens are legitimate citizens of whatever country the parents are citizens of.

          You might have a case where the illegals destroy their identity papers or renounce their citizenship, making them voluntarily stateless. If they renounce their citizenship prior to having children, it might be argued their children are completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I personally think that someone who comes to the US and immediately renounces their citizenship should be shipped to a prison island, segregated by sex, unless they agree to be permanently sterilized. It may be an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem, but if I can think of it, why not the shyster immigration lawyers? Also, it is common for the invaders in Europe to destroy their identity papers and claim to be refugees from the Syrian fighting. There are reports of huge piles of discarded identity papers at the borders.

          Also, when you refer to these peoples, there is also the question of IQ. I’ve heard the average IQ of Hondurans is in the low 80’s. IQ is genetic and doesn’t respond education or the environment. Low IQ is associated with votes for socialism. So, the more people like this you allow to stay in the US, in two or three or four generations will 99% likely be voting, regardless of creating a non-voting class. And I do support the idea of a non-voting class. So, there is again the unrelenting pressure for socialism, all other things being equal.

  3. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. American Indians born in the United States were granted citizenship by act of congress in 1924. It was never questioned that the thousands of American Indians born between 1868 and 1924 were not U.S. citizens. Even the so called “Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma” were not considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore were not U.S. citizens until 1907. If the Indians legally in the United States were considered to be members of their tribes, and children born to them were therefore also citizens of the tribe and not of the United States, how can children of illegal immigrants possibly be considered to be U.S. citizens?

  4. Wow, Trump is going after anchor babies? This I have to see. He wants to drive the debate to the supreme court. Take it on!

  5. One could, I suppose, take the attitude that babies born to illegal immigrants aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The thing is, while this line clearly excludes diplomats, it’s a bit iffier on the children of illegals, if I’m to give it an honest reading.

    One could, I suppose, change the law so as not to extend “jurisdiction” to newborn non-citizen babies, and then take the attitude that they’re therefore not citizens. Or some other such sophistry. If the left can find a way to make abortion a constitutional right, surely an equivalent can be found to mess around with this without a constitutional change.

    Here’s the thing, though: what The Donald is trying to do is to create UNCERTAINTY. Even if the Supremes come down on the side of the left on this one, it’ll take years. And during the intervening time, the “anchor baby” concept will seem much less nice, and so it’ll work even if it doesn’t. That, by the way, is Trump’s style – setting up something that “even when you lose, you win”.

    • I totally disagree.

      Children born to illegal aliens are citizens of the country to which their parents are citizens. While on US territory, they have to obey the rules of behavior, but as soon as they travel outside the US, they are not subject to any US laws. US citizens are subject to US laws even when residing in other countries. This is the difference in jurisdiction.

      An example is the law against offering bribes to foreign companies. A US citizen managing a plant in, say, Saudi Arabia, can be prosecuted for offering a bribe to a Saudi official, even if in Saudia Arabia. A non-US citizen will have broken no law, since he is not subject to US law when not in the country. Again, this is what is meant by “jurisdiction”.

      Since you want to split legal hairs, there is a case I have not seen considered. Suppose an illegal immigrant destroys his identity papers, or formally renounces his previous citizenship. He would be a man without a country, so I guess could make the case that he is completely subject to US laws, since he is subject to no others. The situation is poignantly described in the 1920’s novel by B Traven, “The Death Ship”.

      There were also some cases from Nazi Germany, where German citizenship was revoked for some Jews of, say, Polish derivative. They were kicked out of Germany, but not recognized as Polish citizens, so they were literally stuck in a no-man’s land between Poland and Germany.

      On the whole, though, people who obviously voluntarily destroyed their citizenship papers should not be allowed to reside in a country, or breed.

  6. Whatever the outcome of a challenge to the 14th Amendment it will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. And I thank God for Donald Trump, our great President and his choices for the High Court. If originalists on the court stay true to their convictions then there is a good chance that the 14th Amendment will be rewritten to exclude illegal aliens from citizenship by birth.

    Take a look at the link;

  7. “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…”

    Which is where the devil in the detail is, at least in the interpretation of that bit of language.

    It’s my opinion, that illegal immigrants are NOT in fact subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, being that if they were, they would be deported.

  8. If the writers of the 14th Amendment included the wording “subject to the jurisdiction” for a reason, which they did, then we have no right to change their meaning.
    They plainly stated in their writings that the 14th does not include aliens because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction”.

    It wasn’t until the sixties that bureaucrats started counting ” anchor babies”. Communist agenda at work that far back? Yes.
    We have no need to help their agenda along.
    We have no obligation to fund our replacement by 3rd worlders.

    • Anchor babies and multigenerational chain immigration is by and large what turned California from Republican leaning in Reagan’s day into the ultra left La Raza latino-supremacist run state it is now.

      I still think children of a fraud should be given a choice. If they really say they believe and want communism, deport them to the communist hellhole of their choice or that will accept them. We have no obligation to turn America into a communist toilet to appease their demands.

      Yet those who actually decide that America is a really great place, there needs to be a route to citizenship, probably fast tracked, even if their illegitimately gotten citizenships stolen for them by their parents are de facto retroactively revoked. (not a retroactive application of law, but simply applying the law that has always been on the books, but unenforced for an extended period of time)

      Cruel and abusive evictions might feel viscerally good to people tired of being walked over by third world hordes but I fear becoming the demon that the left accuses the right of being will have our own children see it a different way. Justice and fairness is the best solution, but that’s only possible if absolutely all further such “immigration” is stopped totally and completely until we figure out what to do with those who were already imported to politically gerrymander and culturally take over state after state as it is.

  9. On the October 30 (6:28 minutes in) and October 31 (7:43 in) Mark Levin podcasts he describes why the Constitution does not consider illegal alien babies to be citizens. The amendment was written by Sen. Jacob Howard and he has written
    “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.”

Comments are closed.