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.
Are "anchor babies" citizens? Here is a legal ruling which is quite relevant to that question:
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Plyler v. Doe is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down a Texas statute that denied funding to local school districts for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such children. The Court held that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections and that since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of without a "compelling state interest” it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[Source - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plyler_v._doe_1982]
So, the Supreme Count has already ruled that illegal aliens and their children are NOT citizens of the United States or of the State wherein they reside.
The remaining question is what sort of "due process" should they be given before we
By the way, I seriously question whether the SCOTUS claim of no compelling state interest will remain valid. We have ~94 million persons out of work, a debt which we cannot possibly repay, and a looming financial crisis of huge proportions. When the shit hits the fan, is SCOTUS going to rule there is no compelling state interest in quelling food riots using live ammunition? I doubt it.
If you don't think the two issues are related, consider the situation of survivors in a lifeboat. How many additional survivors do they pull into the boat before deciding there are already too many on board?
No comments:
Post a Comment