OK, I think we are having miscommunication. The term "anchor baby" refers to children born in this country to illegal alien parents. Current case law has been that these children ARE citizens of the United States by "jus soli" (literally "law of ground) or birthright citizenship. This was established in US vs Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649 [1898]). Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive.

Now a minor who was brought to this country illegally by parents entering this country illegally is an entirely different animal. I happen to know a young man who is in this predicament. It is a messy situation, but I have made it known to this young man must return to Mexico and come back legally now that he is of age. Most of those who advocate for him disagree with me. However, because of other issues that I will not enumerate here, I believe it behooves this young man to return to a country he has no knowledge of in order to make his status in this country legal.

To me the real problem isn't the children (anchor babies or illegals). The real problem is the government and the education system that is run by leftist and Socialists. These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.

Anyway, my concern is that the Constitution be upheld regardless of our personal convictions. Sometimes I think that in our righteous anger over this illegal invasion we are suffering we say things in anger or exasperation that we may not mean. Not to mention we say things that may not meet Constitutional muster.

"Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive."

Why not? Why can't we make it retroactive? Do you think we would be better off if we could make it retroactive?

Do you think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given any public education at all? You don't see that as being the real problem?

But the constitution does not speak for itself and, rather obviously, our immigration and the process by which we mint citizens has been vastly corrupted. It doesn't make much sense to try to confront the issue within the confines of what is true constitutionally when illegal immigration is operating outside of what is constitutionally true. What we say should not be limited by the constitution.

The constitution is a fluid document. It was not carved in stone by God, it was written by human beings and we agree to it as a matter of citizenship and no other reason. We could change it to make it more explicit as to the issue of citizenship and who or who should not qualify as US citizens.

It would be, in my opinion as a layman, unconstitutional. If someone, such as, SZ, can demonstrate to me from case law why this would not be the case, then I would be willing to change my view.

If you are so willing to do this to illegals, then I would presume that you would have no issue with the government doing the same to you, correct?

Based on the law as it presently stands, yes, they should.

The real problem is a government that does not enforce its sovereign borders.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

So you are a liberal, then? Only liberals make this sort of statement.

Yes, we could, and should, according to the manner in which the Constitution prescribes.

Only a "liberal' would believe that we should be giving public education to the children of illegal immigrants. If we educate the children of illegal immigrants, that is just one more incentive for them to come here illegally.

Do you think the children of illegal immigrants should be US citizens by birth? If not, then why not and if you have a good reason, then why should the children of illegal immigrants ever be considered US citizens?

"If you are so willing to do this to illegals, then I would presume that you would have no issue with the government doing the same to you, correct?"

What the government does to illegals has nothing to do with what the US government can or can't do to US citizens. Why is it necessary to explain this?

You can call me a liberal if you like, but I am only following legal precedent. The way the law is written now, they have the right to it. I want to change that so that this will no longer be the case in the future.

No, I do not think that children of illegal aliens should be given birthright citizenship. In fact, birth right citizenship should be ended. I believe that the citizenship of the mother should be bestowed upon any child born in the United States. I believe that the changing of the birthright citizenship to what I mention above would require a Constitutional amendment which might invalidate the 14th Amendment and cause problems with some African-American citizens.

The good reason I have that children born in the past and until the law changes are American citizens is US case law. You might want to read those decisions.

Actually, it does have a lot to do with American citizens. Sadly, it seems that there are people who have failed to learn anything from history, and therefore are doomed to repeat it.

It doesn't and you know it. And, furthermore, I know a threat when I hear one. Not a personal threat in this case, but a political threat.

I know that part of the arsenal of those who threaten the sovereignty of peoples everywhere is the promise that their own laws will be twisted against them. The first obligation of our legal system is the protection of US citizens and the first obligation of our legal system in regards to illegal immigrants is removing them from the country. And their offspring. The role of the constitution in the affairs of illegal immigrants and anyone who is not a citizen extends only to the extent that it protects citizens first. We will not corrupt our laws by creating a second legal system for people who are not citizens.

The United States of America exists for its states and its citizens in those states. There is nobody or nothing else that those citizens have any cause to be concerned with. And there is nobody or nothing else that its government has cause to be concerned with. Everyone else who steps foot in this country is a guest and should presume absolutely and unequivocally nothing more. And those who have falsely assumed the guise of US citizenship are something considerably less than guests.

Ok, there are things we might not agree on.

How about taking the staircase one step at a time rather than trying to jump flat footed to the second story?

What might be accomplished in a year? Two years?


Gutierrez has introduced an outrageous amnesty bill. What can we do about that? If it's torpedoed, can we also sink the next two dozen that come along before before the make up of Congress changes?

How can the economic situation be exploited to get rid of the notion that American culture is something to be stamped out and that we'd be better off being Balkanized "citizens of the world"?

The primary for the California governor's race is this June
 

Off Topic?

Actually you're wrong about that, DA. I took the last quote in my signature directly from a statement on the web site where he discusses illegal immigration.