tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post6006839542202698812..comments2024-03-24T21:06:57.039-07:00Comments on FOUSESQUAWK: UC Irvine Law School Dean Tells Us to "Deal With It"on Birthright IssueGary Fousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17014739065121483409noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-22792340975938163812015-08-28T12:43:01.470-07:002015-08-28T12:43:01.470-07:00Yeah, that "anchor babies" term is all a...Yeah, that "anchor babies" term is all about foreign ambassadors fearing that the government that sent them over here will be overthrown in a coup, and having babies who will be U.S. citizens so they can stay here and keep their heads on their shoulders... See how easily your clueless letter writer's own words can be turned back on them?<br /><br />...Chermerinsky writes like an ass, but it is very well settled law that born in the United States means born in the United States, but citizenship is not INFLICTED on embassy staff and such who are merely here to represent their country. It can't be changed by an open debate. It would take a constitutional amendment.<br /><br />At the time the amendment was ratified, our immigration policies were wide open, we had a country to fill up, and hundreds of thousands of babies were being born every year to immigrant parents who had not yet been naturalized. Indeed, those babies, unlike their parents, were eligible to run for President of the United States someday.<br /><br />It may not make sense to you elwood, but at worst it is an unintended consequence of the legal drafting language and the first case that presented the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation. (Note: This happened long before President Obama was elected... even before President Jimmuh.)Siarlys Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15083839117838391267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59324506101124457.post-29100795003707694312015-08-28T08:21:30.353-07:002015-08-28T08:21:30.353-07:00While the "anchor babies" themselves are...While the "anchor babies" themselves are of course blameless, I have never understood how it makes any sense at all for them to receive the great boon of U.S. citizenship due to illegal activities of their parent(s). This would appear to be particularly true in light of the comments of Jacob M. Howard. There may be some, but I cannot think of another example of being able to keep ill-gotten gains derived from illegal behavior. If it does not make any sense, which it doesn't, then it would appear most likely that the 14th Amendment was not intended to apply to these people. elwood p sugginsnoreply@blogger.com