The Fourteenth Amendment

Amendment XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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....

This one sentence is the cause of 300,000 children each year being born in the US to parents in this country illegally. Three hundred thousand children each year being granted citizenship just because they are born in the country. Three hundred thousand children each year providing the avenue for illegal immigrants in this country to obtain government funded healthcare, welfare, and other benefits that are easier to attain as a natural-born citizen. Three hundred thousand children each year who know nothing of America, besides its generosity. Three hundred thousand children of three hundred thousand mothers who are likely still Mexican at heart. Three hundred thousand mothers, three hundred thousand fathers who will protest at being deported and leaving their "American" children behind. These so-called anchor babies comprise one of the biggest headaches when it comes to the problem of rounding up illegal immigrants and sending them back home. When America deports a mother and father, splitting up a family, it is the work of an Evil Empire called America who does not value the family. It's bad for our image, and that's why these illegal immigrants are doing it. They know how to play America for fools.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to those newly freed slaves after the American Civil War. There was no limit to immigration then, so there was no concept of 'illegal immigration.' There was no need to specify this statement.

In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The wording of the Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to exclude automatic citizenship from those who did not owe allegiance to the US. If a person is unlawfully in the US, the native country has a claim of allegiance. If Americans are in England when their child is born, is the child English? No. The child is American just like the parents. Why would anyone think we would write into our Constitution that we are so arrogant as to claim allegiance (a PC way of saying ownership) of a child just because of where he/she is born?

1884, Elk v. Wilkins- Mr. Elk was an American Indian, born to an Indian tribe. He separated himself from his tribe, placing himself under sole jurisdiction of the US law. When he tried to vote in Nebraska elections, Mr. Wilkins, as registrar, denied him the opportunity, stating that he was an Indian and thus not a citizen. In the court ledger, it mentions that Indian tribes were not, strictly speaking (as entities inside the borders), foreign states, but were still alien nations as they were not taxed and the US dealt with them through treaties as though to foreign nations. The people of these tribes owed their direct allegiance to the various tribes, and not the US. The court ruled that Mr. Wilkins was correct, as an Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the US without the consent and cooperation of the government, even if he was born inside the borders.

Eventually, in 1924, Congress passed a special act, the Citizen's Act of 1924 that says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

1889, The United States v. Wong Kim Ark- a child, Wong Kim Ark, was born in San Francisco, CA to citizens of China who were legally in the country, in a permanent residence. The family visited China temporarily, and when they returned, customs allowed Wong Kim Ark entry based on being a natural-born citizen. A few years later, he again visited China, but when he returned this time, customs stopped him and said he was not a citizen. This case was heard by the Supreme Court. It found that Wong Kim Ark was indeed an American citizen. This is believed to be a precedent for the illegal alien situation we are in now, but since the case was found in his favor due to his parents' legal domicil(e), it does not address illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant cannot own a legal domicile, and thus it does not extend citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.

Each year, illegal immigrant mothers are adding more to the population than all other sources of immigration. In 1993, it was estimated that in the seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens, the cost of educating illegal alien children was $3.1 billion. That is estimated to be $5 billion in 2000. It does not include the additional costs of ESL/bilingual education, or other special needs. That is $3 billion of American taxpayer money that other countries, like Mexico, should be paying.

It is estimated that there is between 287,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens in the US each year. The average cost of birth in 2007 was $8000. That cost would be $3-6 billion a year. Guess who picks up that tab. The American taxpayer.

The Mexican government grants dual citizenship for the children of Mexicans born in America. Those "anchor-babies" are seen as advocates for the claims that the American Southwest is actually occupied Mexico. These children, as dual-citizens, retain that allegiance to Mexico, and the dual nationality discourages assimilation, despite the Oath of Allegiance they make. If allegiance is not owed to America, why are they granted citizenship?

In England, if a child is born on English soil, he still must have at least one English parent to be granted Birthright Citizenship. In France, children between 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek citizenship. The Irish were the last of the EU to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and benefits as a result of birth in the country in 2004. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004)

Whether by rephrasing the Fourteenth Amendment, or writing a new one, this must change. Not only is it a drain on our economy and resources, it is also allowing groups like La Raza the opportunity they need to fulfill their Anti-American goals. It is giving citizens of other countries a reason to cross the border to give birth with the sole intent of making their child a citizen. Remove this ability, and we should see a sharp decline in illegal immigration and anchor-babies.

A doctor is under oath to care for any and all who need assistance. I'm not saying they should deny medical treatment. What I am saying is that once the mother and child are healthy enough for travel, the whole family is sent back to their home country, and the medical bill forwarded to their native government. Perhaps once Mexico is on the hook for the $3-6 billion, they'll stop urging citizens to make a run for the border.

Stop granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, or we won't have to wait for a major terrorist attack or war to make us lose our country.