Babies Don’t Provide Anchors!
By Publius Huldah
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says, 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…”
One of the purposes of Section 1 was to extend citizenship to freed slaves.
This Section does not provide that illegals who invade our Country and drop a baby here are automatically the parents of a US citizen.
The key is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: Consider the French ambassador and his lovely young wife stationed in Washington, DC. She gives birth to a child here. Her child was born here. But is her child “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? No! The child is subject to the same jurisdiction as his parents: France.
Consider the American Indians: Sec.1 of the 14th Amendment did NOT confer citizenship on American Indians. They were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” – they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes.
An illegal alien who invades our Country is in the same status as the French Ambassador’s wife. The baby she drops here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Country she left.
So the 14th Amendment does NOT confer citizenship on babies of illegals born here – just as it does not confer citizenship on the babies of foreign diplomats stationed here.
Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, US Constitution, Congress may make laws deciding how people become naturalized citizens.
But Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship status on babies born here of illegal aliens.
This is important.
For a deeper understanding of this important issue, see Professor Edward Erler’s brilliant essay, Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny
To see the debates (on the language I quoted at the top) in the US Senate on May 30, 1866, go HERE
and start reading in the center column, under the subheading, RECONSTRUCTION. Fascinating.
revised Nov. 1, 2018
Share this:
42 Comments »
Leave a comment
PUBLIUS HULDAH
Publius-Huldah's Blog 
Anchor baby laws are Unconstitutional.
LikeLike
No, Article I, Section 8, clause 4, delegates to Congress alone the power to establish what our Naturalization Laws will be. Congress has constitutional authority to make a law saying that any babies dropped here by illegal aliens are to be considered naturalized US Citizens.
My point is and has always been that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t extend citizenship to such babies.
LikeLike
Does that not automatically lend validation to my original point?
LikeLike
What was your original point?
LikeLike
Why should an unborn baby who is the offspring of an illegal immigrant get automatic citizenship and not people who immigrate from other countries through the legal process? Anchor baby laws should be abolished.
LikeLike
The power to make the laws on naturalization was delegated to Congress alone (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4).
Not to you.
I am not current on what the naturalization laws are. I don’t know that they extend citizenship to anchor babies.
My point is that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t extend citizenship to anchor babies.
enough said! I can’t be clearer than that.
LikeLike
““All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
key operative…. “AND”
America has no jurisdiction over another nations sovereign citizens. its also important to note that no one EVER took the 14th to mean anything other than what it was intended, even per the authors statement on the matter, that it was created to deal with the citizenship of freed slaves. it was never questioned for over one hundred years, not until the 1960’s when people slowly started twisting its meaning to suit them politically.
also note, the American indians who were here even longer than the slaves or white Europeans were never conferred citizenship, not before the civil war, and at no time after the creation of the 14th Amendment were they ever assumed to now have a magic end all work-around to skirt our immigration laws.
It took a CONGRESSIONAL LAW – The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which declared: all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States…. to naturalize them into American citizenship… they never got this magical 14th amendment auto-citizenship nonsense because, even though they had been being born in what would become America long before it became a country, the United States had NO JURISDICTION over them.
Im sorry, there is now end all work around to our immigration laws… this is a myth they have been pushing now for 50 years.
“All legislation that violates the US constitution is void” – Alexander Hamilton, 1788
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phenry, Where have your been all my life? Well done!
LikeLike
[…] Yes, we want the southern border wall, and an end to chain migration and the Visa lottery system, but American taxpayers have shelled out enough of their hard-earned dollars for illegal aliens. The truth is, the cost of illegals is just too damned high in too many ways. Build the Wall, stop chain migrations, stop Visa lottery, stop anchor baby citizenship. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by The Jackson Press – Listen Up Congress! No Deal on DACA! | January 11, 2018 |
[…] Yes, we want the southern border wall, and an end to chain migration and the Visa lottery system, but American taxpayers have shelled out enough of their hard-earned dollars for illegal aliens. The truth is, the cost of illegals is just too damned high in too many ways. Build the Wall, stop chain migrations, stop Visa lottery, stop anchor baby citizenship. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by News With Views | Listen Up Congress! No Deal On DACA | January 11, 2018 |
[…] Yes, we want the southern border wall, and an end to chain migration and the Visa lottery system, but American taxpayers have shelled out enough of their hard-earned dollars for illegal aliens. The truth is, the cost of illegals is just too damned high in too many ways. Build the Wall, stop chain migrations, stop Visa lottery, stop anchor baby citizenship. […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Listen Up Congress! No Deal on DACA! - Capitol Hill Outsider | January 9, 2018 |
Speaking of “Anchor Baby” status. Marco Rubio’s parents (plural) were both Cuban citizens when he was born. Is he not a Cuban, too? If, by chance he managed to be a US citizen he most certainly cannot be a Natural Born Citizen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rubio is not a NBC b/c at the time he was born, neither of his parents were US citizens. Marco became a naturalized US Citizen at the time his parents were naturalized. So Rubio is also not eligible to be president.
We should be very suspicious of the phony “conservatives” who push constitutionally ineligible candidates on us….. they are up to no good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that Rubio is not an NBC, but he was naturalized at birth, not at the time his parents were naturalized, because of the poor decision made in US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In this case SCOTUS ruled that Wong, the offspring of legally domiciled aliens, was born a citizen under the authoroty of the 14th Amendment. This in spite of clearly documented intent that the amendment was not meant to be interpreted that way.
Rubio’s parents were here legally; thus, per US v Wong Kim ark, he has been a naturalized citizen since birth.
LikeLike
Under Vattel, the minor child Marco Rubio would have been naturalized at the time his parents were naturalized.
But because of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, he was naturalized at birth by operation of a man-made law. So he is a naturalized citizen not a natural born citizen.
LikeLike
And no, Wong Kim was not wrongly decided! His parents were lawfully here – they were carrying on their own business here – and they were not here on the business of the Emperor of China. So their son – who was born here of parents “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” – was naturalized at birth by Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Supreme Court Opinions are tricky reading for laymen. Law students spend 3 years learning how to read them.
Citizens should read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and outline The Federalist Papers instead of mucking about in supreme Court opinions.
LikeLike
Natural born citizenship is transferred to child by the father. Even if Marco’s mother were American because his father was not American he could never be considered a natural born citizen. This is why Ted Cruz was not natural born, Barack Obama was not natural born, Bobbie Jindal was not natural born. Natural law is the law of God and under the law of God the children bear the same citizenship as the father. The fact that this has been twisted in order to place or keep certain candidates from running for President/VP has many people confused. It is not confusing and not hard to prove.
LikeLike
Your articles are always right on money. Thank God for you. Plesase send me last post on BBA as I accendently deleated it. Thanks. janelee001@outlook.com
LikeLike
Jane you can find them all on my website. Just go to the home page; look under the categories, and click on “balanced budget amendment”. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Good afternoon Publius,
Excellent post which I re-posted at my site. Fellow blogger, Brittius, re-blogged and posted a statement on his site that I believe you’d find interesting, https://brittius.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/babies-dont-provide-anchors/
LikeLike
[…] Publius Huldah’s Blog […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Babies Don’t Provide Anchors! | Viewpoints of a Sagitarrian | August 25, 2015 |
[…] https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/babies-dont-provide-anchors/ […]
LikeLike
Pingback by A Report 8.23.14 The First Rock Star President to Take on the Establishment – Papa Delta Tango. : :: United Patriots of America :: | August 23, 2015 |
As with most cases of our government bastardizing the interpretation of our Constitution, graceful correction will be difficult. But, it must occur, and soon. Unfortunately, I have little confidence that our current electeds will even try. Some serious housecleaning must first be done.
Ms. Huldah, I appreciate how concisely you manage to present the issue. So easy for others to understand.
Thank you.
LikeLike
At your service. Someone asked me a question yesterday and this was my answer.
LikeLike
I wish that you had carried your analogies on Citizenship one step further and included the babies born in the 50 states of the Union. They are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ either whether they are descendants of the freed slaves or not. Your post earlier about ‘anchor babies’ coupled with this most recent post implies a start reality. I could elaborate but it would not have the impact that you could provide. Will you elaborate and give your readers a complete picture of what Citizenship in America is today?
LikeLike
Oh dear, you ARE subject to the constitutional jurisdiction of the United States. To the extent the Constitution delegates power over you, you ARE subject to their jurisdiction. For example, if you:
file for bankruptcy or have a claim in a bankrupt’s estate – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.4
counterfeit coin or securities of the United States – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 6
apply for or infringe a patent or copyright – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8
commit acts of piracy, etc on the high seas – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10
are issued a Letter of Marque & Reprisal by Congress – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11,
and a few other things,
YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
See? You failed to separate out the delegated powers which the United States does have over you with the thousands of usurped powers.
And beware of patriot myths. They are all wrong.
PS: There is more to being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” than the above – I suppose I should write a paper on the full meaning. Since there is lots of confusion about this issue. I will go to original sources and dig out the original intent. Thanks for raising the question!
LikeLike
Dear Publius Huldah,
Please do resolve the paradox of being both a Creator and being a Citizen. I think it is vitally important that those of us who are unable to identify the supporting source of our argument NEED to be able to point out to the “unaware” exactly where that support exists.
I see the united States of America not as a country per se, but only as a “commissioned” monitor and spokesperson (so to speak) acting only within the delegated authorities of the several States and The People within those several States. It does NOT have authorities to do anything without a majority approval of 2/3-majority of those States’ OR at the instruction of The People. Cannot ALL of our troubles with our Federal Government be attributed to our failure to stop the wrongful interpretation of the Constitution?
I look forward to the revelation (in this case the clarity of the paradox) so I may spread the word and teach the lesson to everyone who is willing to learn, for the TRUTH will surely set us free.
LikeLike
Only when I choose to;
“file for bankruptcy or have a claim in a bankrupt’s estate – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.4
counterfeit coin or securities of the United States – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 6
apply for or infringe a patent or copyright – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 8
commit acts of piracy, etc on the high seas – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10
are issued a Letter of Marque & Reprisal by Congress – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11,
and a few other things,”
Is not the United States as created by the Constitution at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17 an agency created by the United States of America in Congress Assembled? If so, then the United States acts as an agent for the United States of America in dealing with the aforementioned areas of responsibility when a Citizen files for Bankruptcy, perfects a claim in a bankrupt’s estate etc, etc, . Is that not correct? If this is correct then I am not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ 24/7/365. I am only ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if, and only if I choose to engage the services of the United States within one or more parameters delegated to it (the United States) by the Constitution. This begs the question: If I file for and receive a United States Passport as a United States National, does that make me ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in all matters within the jurisdiction of the United States as agent under the Constitution and all United States Territorial codes that pertain to the Territories of the United States only?
I consider myself a Citizen per the United States Constitution at Art. i, Sec. 2, cl. 2 and ‘yes’ I am a Patriot in the true sense and meaning of the word. In reading your posts etc. I would have to say that you are one and the same. Yes, 30 years ago I started with the ‘patriot movement’. I found a lot of errors in their preachings ( esp. USC Title 26) and have distanced myself from them for 15 years or better. I am seeking truthful and factual information concerning the proper interactions between the Citizens and their governments (city, county, state, and Federal).
I anxiously await the info mentioned in your postscript.
LikeLike
The answer to everything you said in your 2nd para is NO.
See footnote 5 here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/searching-for-marriage-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/
and read this entire paper: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/ I distinguish – in all my papers and speeches – between Congress’ enumerated powers over The Country at Large – and Congress’ general legislative powers over the D. of C. and the federal enclaves.
For State Constitutions, see: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/states-need-budgets-but-enumerated-powers-limit-federal-spending/ States are a whole different ballgame than the national gov’t b/c of the night & day difference between the State and federal Constitutions.
For the relation between the State and national gov’ts see this: https://publiushuldah.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chart-showing-federal-structure-3-1-part-a2.pdf
LikeLike
In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment authors, had long before provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
From Jim Delaney’s page on TPN re: “BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP”: POLITICS V RULE OF LAW
LikeLike
So you agree with Mark Levin, good.
LikeLike
What? Mark Levin got this right? Levin understands that babies don’t come with anchors? I’m stunned if he understands this.
LikeLike
One way to slow down the illegalls having children here is for congress to add the requirement that for a child to be a citizen, the parents must have resided in the US for a year before the baby is born. Anyone who objects is in favor of the abuse of the amendment.
LikeLike
But there is a better course of action:
1. Close the borders and yes, borders can be closed to those entering. I was throughout communist E. Europe and the former Soviet Union during the Cold War, and borders can be closed. I have seen it. Hard to enter. Also hard to get out.
2. Cut off all welfare to immigrants. That would tend to discourage the parasite class from moving here in the first place.
3. Don’t let anyone in unless they are fluent in English and have valuable skills. I believe the Swiss have or had a requirement that a wanna be immigrant prove a certain level of financial independence.
4. Don’t let any muslims in – even if they aren’t disqualified by any of the foregoing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear PH, my lay understanding of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952(?) is that it prevents entry into the USA of any person or group who holds beliefs that amount to the intention to replace our Constitution with some other law. Given that muslims hold to sharia and given that sharia denies any law to be superior to it, shouldn’t all muslims be prevented from entering the USA and shouldn’t all muslims currently here be deported?
I am under no illusion that congress would even consider enforcing this law, but is my understanding accurate? Thank you.
LikeLike
I don’t have time to read thru the 1952 Act you mention. However, Congress has constitutional authority to make immigration laws which prohibit ANYBODY or ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE from entering these United States.
So whether the 1952 Act already authorizes the banning of all Muslims is really besides the point. If it doesn’t already ban them, Congress has the constitutional authority to make a law banning all Muslims. And it certainly should.
“Libertarian” Americans foam at the mouth when I tell them that Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 1, US Constitution, delegates to Congress power to control immigration. Libertarians are detached from reality and live in a cum by yah world where everybody comes and goes as he pleases.
I touch on Congress’ power to control immigration here – check the footnotes: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/treason-cowardice-and-the-islamic-invasion-why-states-must-revitalize-the-militia/
LikeLike
The Colorado application/acceptance to the union shows the 13th amendment, Aug 1, 1876. Therefore, all states prior to that date; that joined after the amendment was ratified; show the 13th also. Easy with public records request to get a copy of the approved application and acceptance. We have 38 states that accepted the constitution with the 13th in place, or 76 %. The 13th is a fact. There is the proof thanks to Jim Porter. The same holds true with other questions. We know exactly what the constitution said at the exact time each territory was accepted into the union. There is the contract.
National
Please send this out to your constituency. They may want to do the work. Take some action with the truth!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union
LikeLike
I would have to check this all out with original sources. I haven’t done so b/c I don’t see this as a pressing issue.
Lawyers are not the problem: Immorality among the American People is the problem.
One of the indicators of immorality is a penchant to blame problems on scapegoats: Hitler blamed the Jews for all the problems – some here blame the lawyers. But I say to The American People, “Go look in the mirror – THERE is the problem.
LikeLike
You took the words right out of my mouth!
LikeLike
Good morning PH
Nice piece….indeed: the difference between immigration and an invasion is stark, and a pox on those who insist they are the same thing. The legality or illegality of the act, respectively, the right of the owner to control access, reveals ultimate intent to make a home or to plunder.
Thanks.
God bless
MCE
“Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to “bind me in all cases whatsoever” to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?” –Thomas Paine The American Crisis, No. 1 Date: December 19, 1776
LikeLike
Great quote from Tom Paine!
LikeLike
Hi PH
Re: Paine
Paine certainly had his moments….kinda thought you would like that one.
Here is another worth noting:
“This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.” ~Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Whew!
God bless
MCE
LikeLike