Anchor Babies: Are They Constitutionally U.S. Citizens?

This week during the continuing debate on the validity of the steps the State of Arizona has undertaken in order to address the illegal immigrant problems in that state by mostly outside agitators from various special interest groups and media types, there was a report that an additional law addressing the "anchor" baby problem also is being formulated to further restrict any and all citizenship rights by extension to the parents of children who are born in the United States of illegals.

Of course, Arizona once again is setting up the civil rights lawyers for a clear challenge to any such law, rather than taking the steps that would be clearly called for here by our Constitution.

And that would be to place this before the citizenry after using the Constitutional solution through the federal courts in order to get our borders truly physically secured, especially those southern borders nine long years after 9-11, so that this problem is not a problem in any manner whatsoever of those that cross the border to give birth to their children.

Due to separate federal legislation providing for emergency medical care for foreigners - many of whom use the border hospitals also for their needs but do return to Mexico, such legislation is sure to spark additional politicizing by the Mexican government also who use the United States and U.S. citizens wallets, whether visiting that country or not, for their economic stimulus and benefit in more ways than one.

These steps fly in the face of existing federal legislation in this respect, and many others, and does seem that most of these measures that are being facilitated by the state "misrepresentatives" in Arizona are being done for political purposes, of course, without taking any legal steps under Constitutional provision whatsoever to get those borders secured under both the "common defense" provisions of the Constitution, and also the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

That is, after all, why we have a federal government (and is also the primary purpose also of the state government) to begin with - to protect the populace from the adverse impact of foreigners, whether militarily or criminally.

I, of course, have a special interest also in this legislation - as both a former Arizonan and victim of multiple illegal immigrant crimes over the course of 45 years, and also as the granddaughter of immigrants, one of whom never went through the naturalization process and was a "registered resident alien" from Scotland until her death - my grandmother.

My grandfather was a citizen, but although she entered this country legally back in early part of the 20th century, she was busy raising children thereafter, and then feared she did not have the education in order to pass the test at that time, which was fairly stringent, and also had family living in Scotland and was concerned due to wars and such she would be denied the opportunity to visit them, although for financial reasons merely went back three or four times during her lifetime for family visits and celebrations.

The 14th Amendment is being brought to the forefront as the barrier to such legislation at the state level, although I would argue that the legality of all those amendments after the 10th is questionable to begin with, since the 9th Amendment was meant to clarify that any and all future amendments to the Constitution, as a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," were to be first put before the people before the states had any authority to ratify any future amendments to it.

This is a fundamental principle of the Constitutional Republican form of government the founders envisioned and created, as below the people and accountable to them.

And it would clearly be different if we had a true representative government on any level at this point - which we have not since that bogus Supreme Court decision granting "corporate personhood" status to property facilitated by the corporate lawyers in this country, and also due to the fact that the Supreme Court has progressively also then given even Bill of Rights protections even to corporate entities. Including affording them just recently unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for federal office - and in which many of these corporations now are not even U.S. home domiciled, or even home domiciled in the states and thus outside district funding and influence negates even the shred of a representative government at state, federal and local levels across the board.

BP is and was a British domiciled oil company that was formerly owned by the British roayl family, it has been reported, but made massive campaign donations to federal and state legislative campaigns, and appears to me quite obviously why this Administration has basically taken a hands off approach other than the public tongue lashings which have gone on now for over a month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster which cost another eleven Americans their lives at the hands of foreigners operating outside even a minimum of federal or state oversight and drilling into America's coastline and given access to American oil reserves.

While we are fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington is selling off American assets and industries to foreigners right and left.

Patrick Henry fought tooth and nail for those first ten Bill of Rights in order to protect the citizenry from the overstep of this new government as they had experienced in Britain, and his speech during the Virginia ratification process proves what was intended to be secured for the citizenry by those first ten amendments.

It is clear throughout the Constitution that it was also the intent of the founders to write the Constitution addressing this matter clearly through many of its other provisions, such as:

The presidential office holder had to be a certain age, born in this country, and also lived in this country consistently for a proscribed number of years (which coincided with the birth of future Americans through the British custom of making their European tours and schooling after reaching the age of 13, since there were no schools of higher learning in this country at that time and many went abroad for their higher learning).

As are there such age required and residency provisions for all the federal senators and congressmen.

The provisions also addressing the hiring and outsourcing of foreign labor involving placing a tax on such labor after the first generation of "immigrant" Americans died out who were in this country at the signing also shows their intentions in this respect, as does the duty for the new federal government to provide a naturalization process for foreigners (and at the beginning, it took five full years, which was extended to seven at one point, and no inherent "rights" were afforded to foreigners at all prior to formal naturalization and those that entered were documented upon entry and stowaways not included on ship's manifests were criminals and were shipped back to their home countries immediately in chains).

It is clear that the "intent" of those founders after the first generation of Americans died out, that the definition of a "natural born American" was one who was born of at least one either natural born or naturalized parent, and that full citizenship actually is not afforded until that child reached the age of majority.

Children born of generational Americans do not have citizenship rights while minors, and full adulthood in their day was not recognized until the age of 25 through many of the provisions in that Constitution, since at that age most had left home, were either finished their higher educations, or had families or property of their own.

I, as an Arizonan paying taxes for the schools in that state throughout my adulthood there, always wondered how the children of illegals were afforded to attend the public schools as more and more illegals flooded into Arizona after the Reagan amnesty.

It would appear to me that this measure is again treating the symptoms once again and not doing anything fundamentally within the Arizona legislature's power to address the problem at all.

And that is the open borders.

The true legal solution is in passing the required Resolution directing the Governor to file, through the Attorney General's office, the federal lawsuit of "breach of contract" in order to get those borders truly secured from both the criminal element, and the property theft and impact on the legal citizenry this negligence has progressively caused in the homelessness and joblessness especially in that state, and resulting drain on the social service welfare rolls which have placed more and more legal Americans on them progressively in that state.

We have party politicians, and not true statesmen or duly elected representatives at all levels of government - that is abundantly clear.

Or else none of them truly have any understanding of or have read the document upon which they all swear their oath of office.