Anchor Babies and Donald Trump

By Leo G. Alvarez
.
Now what has Donald Trump stirred up?

An Anchor Baby is defined is a child born in America to a woman not a citizen of this country. Some people feel that it is a deliberate act committed by a woman to ensure she will not be deported (ICE totally disagrees as does HHS), or if deported, ensures her entry into this country when the child reaches 18 and can begin the long process (years) of bringing his mother legally to this country.

To confirm this, one must read the 14th Amendment to our Constitution which says in 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This is a concise statement making it very difficult to deny citizenship to a person born in this country. Yet numerous Americans despise the Section, challenge it, and certainly disapprove of it.
Let’s put this in perspective. No one born in this country questions that they are a citizen because they are native born. So, why all the brouhaha about a child born to someone not a citizen? Please see Paragraph one. However, what about the children born of adults of foreign birth who entered or were brought here as slaves prior to the 14th Amendment? Believe me some people, thanks to Mr. Trump, have raised that question.

Slavery raised the issues that brought about the adoption on July 9, 1868 of the 14th Amendment but the Amendment was bitterly opposed. Recently, it entered into arguments in Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges regarding same sex marriage (2015).

How far do you want to go with this argument because at what point in your history did your forefathers enter this country legally?

When the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock they touched foreign soil. They did not obtain the permission of the Tribe upon whose land they touched to enter and take up residence. Granted, that particular Nation (Tribe) probably did not have a written constitution, but. Was permission sought?

And when Junipero Serra entered California, part of a new nation, and established the missions on the property of the various Indian nations, he certainly did not seek the permission of the United States nor the Indians, and neither did the Spanish soldiers who began new families and established Ranchos and fathered children.

I guess we’ll have to find some Constitutions put out by the various Native American Nations to determine our citizenship. Or should we depend on their oral history since they had no writing skills. Which, of course does not answer the question regarding who Native Americans pushed out when they moved in. DARN!! All these nagging questions Donald Trump has raised. Hmmmm, that raises another question, is his citizenship based on an anchor baby in his family tree?

So, how far do we want to take this argument?

========================================

Leo Alvarez is retired from Oxnard PD and is President of the Children’s Wall of Tears™ www.thecwot.org

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

*Scroll down to post a comment

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Citizen Reporter
Admin
5 years ago

Re: “This is a concise statement making it very difficult to deny citizenship to a person born in this country. Yet numerous Americans despise the Section, challenge it, and certainly disapprove of it.”

That is based upon a very flawed reading.
1. The author of the 14th Amendment disagrees with you.
2. Many Americans disagree with you.
3. I don’t believe that the Supreme Court has ever ruled on it.

Using your flawed logic, children of foreign diplomats, tourists and terrorists would all be American Citizens, if only born here. Not true and that’s not what the Amendment says or means.

The jurisdiction refers to the that of the parents, not our country. The wording can be misconstrued and open borders have taken full advantage of it. That needs to be fixed.

So, then you shift to the standard reconquista line and talk about the Indians making the rules.

RE: “So, how far do we want to take this argument?”…..

Bulletin to Leo: The Indians LOST. This is the USA now. It is not Mexico, either. DEAL with it, dude. Maybe we’ll get some politicians with guts to run the country. Maybe not, then we could conceivably go down the toilet like MX. Lots of people trying to get in here. Not that many trying to get out. Yet.