After the school shooting here in Nevada last week they couldn't wait to talk to the press about banning guns and guns are the problem and if we didn't have guns this wouldn't have happened.

Lets use THEIR OWN logic to look at something. The shooter was an ANCHOR BABY who's parents were here illegally. So if your going to ban guns you need to pass tougher laws on immigration and eliminate the ANCHOR BABY law. If that problem was addressed this horrible incident wouldn't have happened. BTW, the parents can't legally own a gun and the kid got the gun from his parents, so clearly tougher gun laws wouldn't have prevented this, taking care of the illegals and ending ANCHOR BABIES would!

Uh, that so-called "anchor-baby law" that you refer to is one of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

True, but it wasn't written for that purpose. It was intended for slaves. The diplomats from foreign nations don't get "anchor baby" rights.

That was a reconstruction amendment added in 1867 or 68 after the illegal civil war for children of slaves. It was not intended for people criminally entering a country and having a kid on our dime.

Oh, according to whom?

Here is a discussion from the American Civil Rights Union.

The Constitution is simple, short and easy to read. There is no excuse for any reporter to write about it, without reading it. The latest example is an article about anchor babies in the Orlando Sentinel today (29 September) by Jim Stratton.

The article concerns a comment about anchor babies by Fred Thompson, Republican candidate for President. If you haven't followed the illegal immigration debate, anchor babies are children born on US soil of illegal immigrant parents. The babies get citizenship. Then, the provisions for "reuniting families" kick in, and the baby assists the parents in becoming legal.

It is a serious problem. Even illegals who cannot read a word of English, are aware of the law. Mexican women who are eight months pregnant are dying every month in the deserts on the border, trying to have their child here as "an American."

Thompson's comment on the automatic citizenship was, "I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons, [and] needs to be revisited." The reporter's gloss on Thompson's comment, was "Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court...."

The reporter was either incompetent or dishonest. Here's what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says in its first sentence: "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." That's the legal basis for anchor babies.

Those who say anchor babies are guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated without an amendment, jump right over the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Here's an example to explain that, applied to children.

An Australian diplomat and his wife (or her husband) are serving in the United States. She has a child, born in a US hospital. Is that child an American? Absolutely not. Under the laws of the US, a child born of a diplomatic couple is a citizen of their nation, not ours, just as the embassies themselves are defined as territory of the foreign nations, not of the US.

What is the connection between the diplomatic child and the child of an illegal alien from whatever country, though most likely from Mexico? Here's the last sentence of the 14th Amendment, a provision which is common to many amendments: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Based on the plain language of the Constitution, Congress is given the power in the 14th Amendment itself to pass "appropriate" legislation. Therefore, Congress could pass a law that says, "For the purpose of citizenship of them or their children, aliens who are not in the US legally, or not here for the purpose of obtaining citizenship are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as stated in the 14th Amendment."

Such a law would be legal, because the Constitution permits it. It would mean a child born in a Tucson, or San Diego, or Laredo hospital of Mexican parents, would be a Mexican child. The anchor baby problem would be over. No more pregnant women would die in deserts of the Southwest, trying to get to a US hospital to have their "American" child.

Contrary to what Jim Stratton asserts as fact, this Amendment ratified in 1868 provides for this very solution, if Congress chooses to solve the problem by law. His assertion that the Supreme Court has held to this result is equally ignorant. The case he refers to, but doesn't name, concerned the child of two aliens who were in the US legally, not illegally.

I am not picking on Jim Stratton and the Orlando Sentinel. The ignorance they display on this issue is common to most of the local and national reporters who talk about anchor babies. Almost all of them assume, and state, that the problem is built into the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. All of them are either dishonest, because they've read the Constitution, and know the legislative power is given to Congress. Or, more likely, they are merely ignorant. They haven't read the Constitution; they assume because many other reporters have said this, it must be true. Therefore, they don't look it up.

But then,why would they change it,and lose scores of potential Voters?

Aren't all politicians and government officials governed by the concept of "do the right thing?".

They have a knack to get right and wrong mixed up!

Have they jailed the parents who owned the gun and deported the illegals?

You're kidding....Right? We're talking the Obozo admin here.

The Liberal approval rating is so low they can't take the chance of deporting any potential future voters.....even if they are against their policies, most can't read or speak enough English to know the Libs are the ones making them!

Yes it is and it can be fixed too.

Actually they do, there were some major issues a couple years ago with that and dependents claiming benefits of a US citizen and getting Diplomatic Immunity.

EXCLUSIVE: The Founding Fathers and drafters of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution may just turn over in their graves if they read a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies that says foreign diplomats are obtaining U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers for their newborn children – effectively becoming U.S. citizens. On top of their new status in the world, these children carry an additional perk that most Americans do not have – diplomatic immunity.




Just like their parents, most are immune to criminal jurisdiction of the United States, creating what CIS describes as a “super citizen.” “Children of diplomats who receive U.S. birth certificates and SSNs have greater rights and protections than the average U.S. citizen,” says Jon Feere, the author of the report called “Birthright Citizenship for Children of Foreign Diplomats?”

Click here to read the full report.

A State Department spokesman told FoxNews.com that under the law, children of foreign diplomats are entitled to these records. “Persons born in the United States, including a child of foreign diplomats, are legally entitled to an official birth record issued by the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the state in which the child is born.” The spokesman added, “whether a child born in the United States to a foreign diplomat acquires U.S. citizenship at birth pursuant to the 14th Amendment requires a fact-based analysis."

"If the child enjoys full diplomatic privileges and immunities, the child would not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.” However, the CIS report highlights how easily a foreign diplomat’s child can indeed go from U.S. guest – to U.S. citizen.

How Could This Happen?

Most states have adopted the same birth certificate request form established by the National Center for Health Statistics’ Division of Vital Statistics. Hospitals present this form to parents requesting a birth certificate. A foreign diplomat or his wife, who has just delivered a child at a U.S. hospital, would get this same form. On the form, there is a section that asks for each parents’ Social Security number, but parents can skip that detail if they do not have one or have forgotten it, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Foreign diplomats would not have that nine-digit number, so they would more than likely leave it blank. Also included, a slot asking if parents would like a Social Security number for their child. It’s a simple “yes” or “no” answer.

Nowhere on this form does it ask a person to check “no” if they are a foreign diplomat. According to the CIS report, “state agencies do not instruct hospitals to differentiate between children born to foreign diplomatic staff and those born to U.S. citizens or temporary or illegal aliens. Birth certificates are issued to all persons born on U.S. soil and requests for SSNs are generally forwarded to the Social Security Administration without being second-guessed.”

The CIS report goes on to say, “the Social Security Administration does not investigate whether SSN requests are for children of foreign diplomats. Although the agency does recognize that U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not eligible to receive SSNs, there is no mechanism in place for preventing such issuance.”

Immigration attorney Toni Maschler says while it is possible this is happening, it is probably rare.

“It would be proper for them to apply for a green card, but in most cases that child doesn’t stay here long enough to be eligible to naturalize as a U.S. citizen because their parents would more than likely transfer to a different post,” says Maschler. Palma Yanni, immigration attorney and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, echoes Maschler’s statement and questions if these children would even ever consider becoming an American. “This is a tiny number and involves high-level diplomats who usually return to their country. This group would strongly identify with their nationality,” says Yanni.

Is it an Easy Fix?

With so many agencies involved in the road to citizenship – five mentioned in the CIS report – which would be best tasked to solve this potential problem?

Feere points to Congress. “I think Congress is the entity that needs to step up and provide guidance to the top agencies, which are the National Center for Health Statistics and the Social Security Administration,” says Feere.

Feere has a quick-fix recommendation: “requiring foreign diplomats to note their profession on birth certificate forms under penalty of law should be considered. This would necessarily require state vital statistics offices to forward information on parental occupations to the Social Security Administration so that a determination on citizenship can be made by federal authorities.”

In the past, the National Center for Health Statistics has talked about adding a section for parental occupation but says “it was a financial decision in the 2003 birth certificate revision to not include it because states didn’t have the money to code the information.”

Some may be quick to characterize what is happening as a type of loophole, but Feere says, “it’s a matter of law, and despite Congress’ clear intent to not create a completely universal and automatic birthright citizenship policy, the current application of the Citizenship Clause is so lax that the United States has a de facto universal birthright citizenship policy that denies U.S. citizenship by birth to no one, including children born to foreign diplomats.”

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause reads: “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.”

As the report points out, there is heated debate over who is entitled to claim citizenship, in particular illegal aliens or temporary visitors, but Feere adds, “there is one thing that everyone engaged in the debate agrees on: children born to foreign diplomats are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are not to be granted U.S. citizenship.”

No, but they have retained a top lawyer and legal team and a top PR firm which they clearly cant afford. I have a hunch if you follow the money trail it will lead back to La Raza and possibly even the DNC. Their PR firm has been painting them and their monster predator of a son as victims and that he was bullied.

They are doing everything to deflect the truth and it is disgusting.

Oh and they don't arrest illegals here even when they are committing other crimes. I take at least one a week into custody for stealing, trespassing and even fighting with us when we try to stop them and we have to handcuff them. The cops will only issue a citation and even if we can prove they committed a Felony like Burglary (coming in with the intention of stealing) or Strong Arm Robbery (Using force to try to take merchandise IE fighting with us when we stop them). It's disgusting. I remember back before 2008 when we caught an illegal for stealing they would arrest them and put an immigration hold on them EVERYTIME. Now these criminals who have already committed several crimes who are still committing crimes by stealing and fighting, who have a pattern of criminal behavior and a criminal temperament are just given another free pass and able to do it again, so what is the deterrence to make them stop?