While the United States engages in a faux struggle to comprehend the true intent of the 14th amendment, the Mexican Constitution is quite clear: Anchor babies belong to them no matter where they are born.
The argument of the open borders advocates is that anyone born on American soil instantly becomes an American citizen whether that birth occurred during a commission of a crime or not. In their world, a pregnant woman can cross into the United States illegally, give birth, and confer American citizenship on that child. If only that’s what the 14th amendment said. That’s not what it says at all.
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.
The key phrase is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Open border advocates, as well as ill informed would be constitutional scholars assume that birth on American soil puts a child in the jurisdiction of America, even if the parents are either not citizens of the United States or are in fact illegal aliens. In the case of Mexico, this is not true, and their own constitution is quite clear about it.
Chapter II
Mexicans
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels.
Take a good look at article II there. Those born in a foreign country, would only need one of the parents to be Mexican citizens to make that child a Mexican citizen, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Am I saying that the Mexican Constitution usurps the American Constitution on American soil? Not at all. Their constitution is referring specifically to their citizens and theirs only. According to the laws that cover their citizens, it doens’t matter where they have children, they are still Mexican citizens.
Of course, the open borders crowd cares nothing about the law. The aiding and abetting of illegal aliens is proof of that. The 14th amendment is an interesting read. It actually deals with these anti American socialists on a certain level. That part of it has been as bastardized as the rest of the amendment though.
Any legislator, or state for that matter that is thinking of bringing up anchor baby legislation has a strong case-in theory. The reality of activist judges is another matter. Ironically, it is the country that encourages the most illegal immigration into the United States that is providing the foundation for not conferring automatic citizenship based on geography. Of course, any legislation would ultimately have to run the gauntlet of breathing document readers, and wise Latinas that want to remake the Constitution-whoever’s it may be, in their own graven image. We have two constitutions that are very clear on the citizenship issue. In a right side up world, this would be open and shut. I don’t think anybody has illusions about it being that easy.
“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
You said it, that is the key to this whole argument and clearly Mexico’s constitution states that these anchor babies are jubject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, rendering the 14 amendment useless to the open borders crowd as an excuse to defend anchor babies. Great find!
Appreciated hearing about ol mexico…but at the rate we are going, I am waiting for Obama to claim that we gained Mexican territory illegally, and thus must return it to Mexico. At the least, pay Reparations. He has been working his way to this point with native americans.
I’m sure that the open borders crowd will use the ‘dual citizenship’ argument. But since babies can’t claim anything, it will be a thin argument.
He would be impeached Bunkerville, even by his own followers. On the other hand, he did say he was willing to be a one term president.
Dual or multiple citizenship can be tricky. For example, a baby born to American parents while they are living or traveling in say Great Britain would be recognized by US government as an American citizen, The baby would also be recognized by the government of Great Britten as a British citizen. By American law, if I’m not mistaken, the child has to make a decision at age 18. The British, on the other hand, don’t care how many different citizenships their citizens have, they will always be British.
They have to make a decision when they’re 18? Isn’t that what Obama did? I think it was. If we become a North American Union-and we’re pretty close to that now, citizenship will be irrelevant.
This information is sure to come up in any future case concerning anchor babies. Looking at what the Mexican Constitution says and how the 14th Amendment to our own Constitution is worded, I fail to see how our courts could give these babies automatic citizenship. That doesn’t mean it will not happen and given the convoluted decisions we have seen coming out of some of our courts, all bets are probably off.
Well LD, as Jim mentioned, they’re going to use the multiple citizenship argument, and they have precedents to back that up. It seems pretty clear to any reasonable person, but in the end I think it will come back to the interpretation of the 14th amendment.