What to Do About Anchor-Babies, Parents and Criminals

by James Jaeger

All this talk about "anchor babies" -- what is the source of the problem? I posit the source of the problem is the 14th Amendment.(1) The 14th Amendment, passed in the late 1860s, was NOT written by any James Madison. More likely it is legislation that seems like it could have been written and passed by a bunch of drugged-out, sex-crazed BabyBoomers!

Don't believe me, try even reading the 14th Amendment. This Amendment has little or no focus and it wanders all over the universe. First it deals with privileges and immunities; then it deals with civil rights; then slaughterhouse cases; then due process, privacy rights, personal autonomy, territorial jurisdiction and equal protection. And all this crap is just in Section 1. Then, as if written by a bunch of potheads around a campfire, the 14th rambles on to discuss representation, Indians, taxation, voting rights, electors, male inhabitants, age requirements, rebellion and even crime. Section 3 then launches out to cover office requirements, the oath of office, insurrection, rebellion and even voting rights. Section 4 wanders into debt and Section 5 tops off the Amendment with a hit of enforcement powers and even the Commerce Clause. Is it any wonder why Americans, led by Donald Trump, are arguing over who gets to live in the USA and who does not?

The term "anchor baby" could be said to be derived from the 14th Amendment in that Section 1 of the Amendment states:

"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 means that if you were born in the U.S. then you are a citizen of the U.S. -- you are ANCHORED here as a BABY whether your parents are legal citizens or not. Thus, no where in this sentence -- OR the Amendment -- is there any discussion about whether the child of an illegal immigrant automatically becomes a U.S. citizen or not. So here we clearly have a case where the government and WE THE PEOPLE screwed up. Hard to believe, but we did.

The pure nebulosity of the 14th Amendment's text is source of the problem of the nation's immigration problem.

Thus, in short: the United States HAS no immigration policy. At least it has no immigration policy based on the U.S. Constitution, a document written when the population of the country was only about 2.5 million people. Today the population is 320 million people -- 128 times what it was when the Founders penned the Constitution. Obviously, with a huge land mass before them, immigration was not a major concern of the colonists, thus we see no restrictions on immigration in the founding documents.

Population Considerations:

But today things are different. As Trump says, if we are to have a country, that country must have boarders and those boarders must be respected. An indefinite number of people can't be permitted to infiltrate a country and preempt that country's resources and benefits, benefits built by the past immigrants who entered legally.

Depending on whose data you want to rely on, there are between 11 and 12 million illegal immigrant in the U.S. Trump says there could be as many as 30 million. Let's say there are 21 million illegals, that Trump is partly correct because it's easy to see that at least 10 million illegals could be so under the radar they don't even show up in births statistics, school enrollments or death records. Twenty One million illegals in a country of 320 million people is 6.6% of the population.

But consider this: the immigration issue seems to revolve around two items: 1. what to do with the people who have come here illegally, and 2. what to do with the children of illegal immigrants, what are referred to as "anchor babies."

Solution Rationale:

I propose this as a solution: Wisdom and rational decency tell us that we should not blame a child for the "sins" of a parent. Just because someone had a lousy parent, or a parent that was a criminal, does not mean the child should be treated any differently than any other child. We each make our own futures and to punish a child for something a parent did is immoral by all ethical and religious standards. If one agrees with this precept, then the children of illegal immigrants should not be punished in any way, including deportation, temporary or permanent.

Now as far as the parents -- some part of the potential 21 million illegal immigrant population -- what should be done about them? As we saw at the beginning of this article, the 14th Amendment, being part of the U.S. Constitution, is part of the highest law in the Land. Since the Constitution is the highest law in the Land, we can ignore any and all other "laws" and regulations, policies and executives orders that may pertain to the subject of "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " if they in anyway invalidate or are inconsistent with the Constitution.

If one can agree with this, in order to make progress with this complex and difficult issue, I would further offer this. Anyone reading the 14th Amendment has to agree that this Amendment, as stated above, not only wanders all over the map, it does NOT make clear what it means by "persons." Can "persons" mean illegal immigrants? What about people just visiting the U.S.? What about "persons" who are pregnant and cross the boarder to have the child rather than abort the child in the country of origin? The 14th Amendment is silent and/or crazy on all of these factors. Thus any "law" or regulation based on the 14th must also be silent and/or crazy. And this is why we should ignore any and all statutes on immigration until the highest law of the Land is cleared up.

Thus, given the 14th Amendment is silent on what kind of "persons" should be granted citizenship, I think WE THE PEOPLE cannot justify deporting parents of children born in the United States either. This would not only tear up families and homes, it simply does NOT feel American, let alone like the Christian thing to do.


So in summery my reasoning for granting total and complete amnesty to all children AND their parents who are here in the U.S. "illegally" is three fold:

1) WE THE PEOPLE screwed up by NOT making a constitutional amendment clear enough to cover the situation of immigration, children and parents. We also -- as represented by our profligate political parties (the Dems and GOP) -- looked the other way while illegal immigrants came into the country. To now toss them out is immoral if not criminal;

2) It is unethical and immoral to break up families with deportation. If we did this, we would be no better than the Nazis that broke up families to send some to work camps and others to the gas chambers.

3) And this third reason: Twenty One million illegals in a country of 320 million people -- only 6.6% of the population -- is not going to sink our system. If an increase of 10 to even 30 million people is going to destroy the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the other 300 million some people in the nation, then the real problem we have is something else. There is no justification for using immigrants, legal or illegal, as scapegoats for our real problems.

Criminal Immigrants:

These points made, I come to the issue of criminal illegal immigrants, the wall, and new immigration policies, if not an amendment of the 14th Amendment.

Immigrants that have come to this country illegally and who have gotten in trouble with the law more than the average U.S. citizen should probably be deported. If people are here illegally and they have not been able to integrate with American Society, such people take on the color of an antagonistic invasion "force." The gradient scale of this "invasion" can be anything from the unproductive citizen who wiles away his or her life using/selling drugs to the dangerous criminal escaping the jurisdiction of a former country.

Immigrants that take on the color of an invasion force should be handled by the State Militias as set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, which states:

"The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

This is where the Federal Government and the State Governments can cooperate. Per the U.S. Constitution every state is supposed to have its own Militia.(2) The President of the U.S. can "borrow" State Militia by simply asking the Governors of the state at issue for use of "his" militia. In this way our Founders have provided us with a system of homeland security that respects both the jurisdiction of the federal government and the states. It's too bad globalists and their rogue politicians in DC -- hell-bent on centralizing all power their New World Order -- have eroded this wonderful system, a system that could protect WE THE PEOPLE from invasions of criminal illegal immigrants without the insanity of the PATRIOT Act and its nefarious spawn, the Department of Homeland Security.(3)

The Wall:

Donald Trump, one of the biggest real estate developers in the world, can build a wall. He has build thousands of walls in the past and the wall that will close off Mexico's flood of illegal invaders is 10,026 miles SHORTER than the wall that the Chinese built over 2,228 years ago with not even one power tool. If the country that put a man on the moon can't build a wall that's only 3,145 miles long, this country will never be able to build anything or even refurbish its decaying infrastructure of bridges and roads.

And why will Mexico pay for the wall, as Trump assures us? Because the Mexican government off-loads many of its undesirables to the U.S. where such can rape and pillage Americans for benefit beyond NAFTA. It is then the American taxpayer that foots the incarceration bills and it is the Republican's prison-industrial complex that garners the profits.

On the other hand, NAFTA, the trade bill signed by Democrat, Bill Clinton, is the "free trade" treaty responsible for gutting the U.S. manufacturing base and destroying the American Middle Class. Thanks Bill. Americans finally understand that Ross Perot was right: the Democrats AND the Republicans are enemies of WE THE PEOPLE. They are enemies because both of these "factions" have been selfishly benefiting from illegal immigration for decades. The Dems are getting voters that support the illegals and the GOP is getting slave labor for its factories. Meanwhile American multinational corporations have been abandoning the U.S. and re-locating their factories to Mexico under NAFTA.

So why will Mexico pay for a wall? Because if they don't pay Trump will either rescind NAFTA or place a tariff on Mexican-made goods entering the U.S. If NAFTA were rescinded, Mexico would loose hundreds of billions of dollars. Construction costs for a wall are only hundreds of millions of dollars. It would make no sense for Mexico to cut such a stupid deal.

Another way Trump will get Mexico to pay for the wall is to impose an import tax on the goods they are selling to the $15 trillion U.S. market. Mexico and other foreign countries like China already impose VAT taxes on U.S. products entering and exiting their countries so why should Mexico and places like China get to do this to the U.S. They shouldn't. So the loss of NAFTA and/or a tariff on imported goods from Mexico would mean a MUCH larger cost to Mexico than a mere wall. Unfortunately, stupid people in Washington and sycophant pundits in the MainStream Media simply don't get it. Actually they DO get it. They simply are on board with the globalist agenda set forth by the multinational corporations that buy endless TV commercials from the MPAA networks and studio/distributors. So, as Trump says, Mexico will pay for the wall either in outright cash or through a tariff levied on their imported goods.

New Immigration Policies:

Obviously once the Wall is built and we have resolved what to do with productive and non-productive illegal immigrants and their children, a set of firm and clear policies must be codified to ensure the situation stabilizes.

Make America Great Again is Trump's log-line. Why can't this logo be applied to the rest of the world? If the American People continue to allow people from all over the world to flood into this country instead of making THEIR countries great, how does that benefit the world in the long run?

For me, the greatest disappointment is that people would rather flood into the U.S. than fix their countries and governmental systems. Everyone says the U.S. no longer great, that's it's going down hill, yet so many still want to come here. It seems that under the proper leadership -- meaning NONE of the idiots that are currently in the Establishment government -- the U.S. can be restored to a greatness. And if the world wants to come here now, they will really want to come here if greatness is restored. But again, America cannot host the entire world -- as much as the good-hearted people here might wish to do. So what is she to do? I would suggest that the U.S. -- instead of exporting endless jobs, Federal Reserve Notes and weapons to the rest of the world -- should export its Constitution.

If the U.S. Constitution works for America, why can't it work for other countries? Why can't the people of other countries, instead of coming here, make their countries great. Make their countries as great as the U.S. in their own ways? They can. All they have to do, to get started, is adopt the U.S. Constitution and apply it. And if they decide to do this, they should not change one single clause or word in the document, for the U.S. Constitution is a blue print for freedom and prosperity. If one changes a blueprint they change the structure of the building and such a building may be unsafe or even crumble. There is not one single word in the Constitution that does not have meaning and import.

America's immigration problem can be solved. Mexicans, instead of fleeing to America, can make their nation just as great, but WE THE PEOPLE have to help them. We have to help them by not exploiting them for cheap labor, votes and drugs. This problem, the problem of illegal immigration is thus partly our responsibility. Americans have to take ownership of where they went wrong and not punish the wrong people: children, productive parents and families. Americans must use their best principles -- the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and their Christian heritage -- to solve the problems they have participated in creating through neglect and irresponsible representation. Make America great again.

------------------------------------ (1) The 14th Amendment states:


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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

(2) See the movie, MOLON LABE, available on Youtube. Also see MIDNIGHT RIDE, clips and trailer at http://www,

(3) To fully understand the immigration we have today, one has to take a serious look at special interest legislation that became the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act. This Act, proposed by Rep. Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, and promoted by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s and replaced it with a system with a preference nations in the Western Hemisphere. This Act thus marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past in that it encouraged Hispanics, Asians and Africans as well as Northern and Western Europeans while discouraging Southern and Eastern Europeans. In short -- and what's not taught in politically correct text books is the fact that -- the Act was designed to exclude people that were or may be anti-Semitic and dilute the U.S. population with people that were hopefully not anti-Semitic.

Originated: 23 August 2015
Supplemented and Revised: 24 August 2015

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute