Islamist Anchor Babies
About children being born on our shores, and being granted instant citizenship via the 14th Amendment, a blog commenter writes:
Middle Eastern women from wealthy families have been having babies in the better Northeast Hospitals for years. The difference is that they take their newly minted US Citizens back to the middle east to raise them. I expect a wave of "US Citizen" jihadists to hit our shores in about 10-15 years.
I didn't find links to any stories about Muslims doing this (here's one about Venezuelans), but it's a distinct possibility: Creating terrorists with U.S. passports, and the right to return here with ease and take up residence.
I'm thinking the 14th Amendment needs some updating.
Yeah, that's how my sister became a US citizen. I say deport her ass. Hasta la vista, hermana mayor!
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 12, 2008 8:17 AM
Excellent point Amy.
If you're interested, you can find a great article on the anchor baby issue and the 14th Amendment here.
Jamie B. at January 12, 2008 2:06 PM
I'm relatively happy with the 14th amendment -- I think that the best way to stop Islamic Jihadis is for us to get off of oil.
I am optimistic that energy independence and the Internet will clear up the Islamic Jihadi problem within a generation.
I could be convinced otherwise.
jerry at January 12, 2008 2:28 PM
dunno kids, unless we could establish problem proportions for this, I'm a skeptic. Do we want to muck around with the 14th if it would only effect a few thousand people? And by what assumption do we make such a claim that people willing to pay so much money to come here, will produce children inherently harmful to us?
Now, if the REAL reason to talk about this is ILLEGAL immigration, and then they have kids here, who can establish a reason not to deport, well this MIGHT be an issue...
But you REALLY have to be careful about mucking with ammendments.
Also? Courts have precedent to take in to consideration the needs of the child, independent of their parents. Regardless if it's childsupport, welfare, or citizenship, or any other need. The needed inertia to change THAT would be even greater.
What I would think would work was a rule that you couldn't travel into the US. on a tourist visa after 6mo. preggers because of the potential medical danger. I think it would be a lot easier to curtail travel that way, and leave the questions of being born her alone. The big HOWEVER would be that this will be called discrimination. But really, this is bald faces. Travelling to the US when you are 7-8 mos. preggers, and staying for more than a week or 2? Yup, you have something in mind. But I think we should control when people can come, and how long they stay, rather than dinking with the idea that being bron here makes you from here...
SwissArmyD at January 12, 2008 2:34 PM
Not all court interpretations of the 14th Amendment affirm birthright citizenship. So, the possibility exists for an interpretation from original intent.
Much more disturbing is that federal law establishes birthright citizenship as a matter of statute! How has this stupid law withstood common sense for the last fifty years?
Jeff at January 12, 2008 4:01 PM
Let's see if I have this straight : you think it worthwhile to tamper with Constitutional Rights on the basis of a potential situation which has not been reported in past centuries.
And you advertise as a problem solver.
opit at January 12, 2008 5:41 PM
To second Jeff's comments, if you read the article posted by Jamie, you might be convinced that it is in fact the egregiously incorrect interpretation of the 14th ammendment that has gotten us into this mess with anchor babies and family reunification.
What the author of the article proposes is akin to the de jure situation in France. As I understand it, a child born of an alien national, but legally residing in France, is considered to have all the rights and responsibilities of a French citizen until the age of 18, at which time the child must choose his citizenship. It is interesting that most people think that there is an automatic "right by soil" in France, although that is not strictly true. I suggest that this arrangement is much more in keeping with the 14th ammendment. The children of undocumented aliens would have zero right to citizenship and should be considered illegal themselves. (I know that that will make many hearts bleed, but the situation that we have now defies all logic, and I suggest reason is a better instrument in making policy that emotion.)
It doesn't surprise me that the standing interpretation of the 14th (which I hold to be incorrect, do to the "subject to juristiction, thereof" clause) has not been challenged. It is not clear to me how it even could be challenged, as it would be difficult to argue that a citizen's rights are being infringed upon by the state due to the legality of anchor babies. I hope a lawyer on this board can explain how it would be possible to mount a challenge against the "citizen by birth on U.S. soil" laws as unconstitutional.
liz at January 12, 2008 11:52 PM
>>>is considered to have all the rights and responsibilities of a French citizen until the age of 18
By that I mean, of course, the rights and responsibilities of a French minor citizen, not a French adult citizen. Many rights and privledges are granted at the age of 18 in France.
liz at January 12, 2008 11:54 PM
if you read the article posted by Jamie, you might be convinced that it is in fact the egregiously incorrect interpretation of the 14th ammendment that has gotten us into this mess with anchor babies and family reunification.
Exactly.
P.S. Ireland recently passed a law against this -- against allowing kids of non-Irish parents born on Irish soil to be Irish citizens.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2008 12:57 AM
The United States can completely rid itself of foreign energy sources and still be vulnerable to Jihadi madmen. If you remove the oil demand generated by the United States, the demand curve will shift to the left, causing prices to fall and quantity as well. However, with the drop in price, oil will then become much more attractive to third world and developing nations like China and India. Thus, the Muslim financiers will continue to have a steady source of income.
The best way to protect Americans is to beef up our immigration policies by restricting who can and cannot become an American citizen. That includes rethinking the 14th amendment.
Cody at January 13, 2008 12:59 AM
Thanks, Cody -- exactly right. (Still a little groggy from Friday a.m.'s anesthesia and I forgot to post that in response to Jerry's comment.)
Islam itself is about converting or killing or enslaving in dhimmitude all the infidels. Oil is just a sideline.
And no, not all Muslims want this, but it's the text of the religion, and while Christians stopped murdering "infidels" as the policy of Christianity centuries ago -- http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/01/every_witch_way_4.html -- Muslims continue this primitive behavior today.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2008 1:51 AM
More on that here:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP138606
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2008 1:59 AM
NOW your thinking like a terrorist!!! ;)
Tweaking amendments won't solve much though. They will find another way, but that is the sneaky sh!t they have to do (anchor babies). If the jihad gang truly declared war on all "infidels" and actually tried to do it in open combat, they would simply be destroyed. Islam cannot take hold (legitimately) in a place like America - adults tend to get agitated when told "how to live". It will fade away...but I'll have a few bullets on hand in case somebody needs to be reminded how much I like my liberty.
kbling at January 14, 2008 3:01 PM
Leave a comment