Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > Priority Topics Section > Immigration

Immigration Topics relating to the subject of US Immigration

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-04-2010, 03:52 PM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default No-brainer: Anchor babies are not citizens!

I don't know why people still don't get this. 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."

What's not clear about the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "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." (quoted from the article linked below). If these children are not counted as citizens by virtue of their not being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then how could the children of illegal aliens be? Yet the talking heads, even some I heard on Fox News yesterday, are still insisting this is settled law which can only be changed by a constitutional amendment, to which I say BS!

Ann Coulter is clearly one who gets it:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187785
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-05-2010, 04:33 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default They don't want to get it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx

Last edited by wetibbe; 08-05-2010 at 04:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-05-2010, 04:45 AM
wetibbe wetibbe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 801
Default They don't want to get it.

The talking heads that "don't" get it don't want to.

In all of the years that I lived overseas in all of those many countries I saw the most outrageous corruption imaginable.

As the years pass, particularly the last 5 to 8 years I have become more and more disillusioned about the corruption, dishonesty and hypocrisy of American politicians and left liberal progressives. However, as I read more American history I also realize that this isn't just a new phenomenon. It has always been corrupt, even back a century and more ago.

But times are changing. The population is ballooning and along with it there are more and more crooked politicians. The media is changing. Events are now reported instantly from all over the world. It seems to me that presently the current administration has an inordinate number of really duplicitous, bad characters and it is a deliberate plot to fill the offices and positions with a certain mentality that is surely magnifying the corruption, chicanery and dishonesty.

When a regime becomes so unpalatable to the voters it usually doesn't last very long. Probably Jimmy Carter was the last worst President and we can see that this regime is far worse than Carter ever was.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-05-2010, 05:42 AM
Rim05 Rim05 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: So CA
Posts: 1,222
Default

Quote:
As the years pass, particularly the last 5 to 8 years I have become more and more disillusioned about the corruption, dishonesty and hypocrisy of American politicians and left liberal progressives. However, as I read more American history I also realize that this isn't just a new phenomenon. It has always been corrupt, even back a century and more ago.
I hope you note that of all those running for this years election, not one of them is worth the paper ballot. It gets worse every election. Is it the politicians or that people in general are changing that much? I am not looking at one party but all candidates.
When all our senior citizens die I think the world will be a free for all.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:08 PM
Don Don is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 649
Default

I was stunned to see that Sen. Lindsay Graham was supporting the abolition of birthright citizenship. I have to believe this issue was polled and focus grouped before Graham made this stunning statement. If so, things would seem to be going our way at the grass roots level.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-05-2010, 01:24 PM
LAPhil LAPhil is offline
Continent Thief
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tralfamador
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don View Post
I was stunned to see that Sen. Lindsay Graham was supporting the abolition of birthright citizenship. I have to believe this issue was polled and focus grouped before Graham made this stunning statement. If so, things would seem to be going our way at the grass roots level.
I was amazed at this also, considering how he was Mr. Amnesty only three years ago.
__________________
OPEN BORDERS AND MASS AMNESTY

Ich Bin Ein Arizonan!

"I entirely reject the concept, however, of "anchor babies." If parents are found to be here illegally, then the whole family, children as well, should be sent back to the parents' country of origin."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-05-2010, 08:01 PM
Bri-M's Avatar
Bri-M Bri-M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: norwalk, calif.
Posts: 61
Default Justice brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies

JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES
by Ann Coulter
August 4, 2010

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "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."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "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."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."

In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved