Skip to content

Regarding ILLEGAL aliens, and “anchor babies”

09/01/2015

Upaces88 sent me a Devvy Kidd article on this subject. And it is pretty blunt and to the point.

And the link within the link is exactly so. I love it when there has already been legal opinion stated:

States must fight legal fiction called ‘anchor babies’, October 3, 2011

“Consider these words from Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino, in his column (I hope you take the time to read all of it):

Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny

“In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.”

“He further points out: “But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegal aliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.”

“Prof. Erler hit it out of the ball park: Children born on US soil of an illegal alien parent (or two parents) regardless of country of origin have no “right” to U.S. citizenship.”

There was more before in this article, and plenty more after. Both from Ms Kidd and in the link-within-the-link article I just quoted. If you had any questions, these contain enough to get you well on the way to all your answers.

This question has been answered already. Why is it still being asked?

Oh, right, we have an illegal alien in place as POTUS.

Fraudulently.

10 Comments
  1. 09/03/2015 12:28

    Reblogged this on BPI reblog001.

  2. 09/03/2015 17:39

    Let me try this again.

    She hits everything right on the head.

    At no point in the debate of the 14th amendment was birthright citizenship ever a part of the equation.In fact the framers explicitly disavowed such a premise and put in the proviso that excluded itinerants traveling in the country-subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This meant more than just observing the civil order that any human must follow but it meant fealty to the government. It means acquiescence to the rule of law. When one sneaks in they are most definitely rejecting the rule of law. When they work using forged documents they are most definitely rejecting the rule of law. When they receive welfare from the rightful citizens of the country under false pretense they are rejecting the rule of law. When they stand up and demand even more through their racist mouthpieces at La Raza, MALDEF and MeCHA they definitely are rejecting propriety by demanding a government supposedly here to protect us confiscate our wealth for their benefit.

    That is more like insurrection than aquiescence.

    And I won’t even get into the open contemptible racism shown by these hacks. What can be more racist than calling your organization The Race; whose main goal is reconquista and establishing Atzlan>

    But even more discouraging is the assault on reality come from both sides of the aisle as Anne Coulter spells out here.

    Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they’re popping up on Fox News’ airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol.

    Last Thursday’s job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo and David Rivkin.

    In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years” – Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.”

    Then of course Anne schools these dishonest invasionista hacks by driving a truck through the holes in their “history”

    Republicans have been out of the White House for seven long years, and GOP lawyers are getting impatient. So now they’re popping up on Fox News’ airwaves, competing to see who can denounce Donald Trump with greater vitriol.

    Last Thursday’s job applicants were longtime government lawyers John Yoo and David Rivkin.

    In response to O’Reilly’s statement that “there is no question the Supreme Court decisions have upheld that portion of the 14th Amendment that says any person, any person born in the U.S.A. is entitled to citizenship … for 150 years” – Yoo concurred, claiming: “This has been the rule in American history since the founding of the republic.

    …Incongruously, Yoo also said, “The text of the 14th Amendment is clear” about kids born to illegals being citizens.

    Wait a minute! Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law – since “the founding of the republic”!

    And for the coup d’ grace on the other invasionista sychophant

    At least Rivkin didn’t go back to “the founding of the republic.” But he, too, claimed that the “original public meaning [of the 14th Amendment] which matters for those of us who are conservatives is clear”: to grant citizenship to any kid whose illegal alien mother managed to evade Border Patrol agents.

    Whomever that was the “original public meaning” for, it sure wasn’t the Supreme Court.

    To the contrary, the cases in the first few decades following the adoption of the 14th Amendment leave the strong impression that it had something to do with freed slaves, and freed slaves alone:

    – Supreme Court opinion in the slaughterhouse cases (1873):

    “(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

    – Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Virginia (1879):

    “[The 14th Amendment was] primarily designed to give freedom to persons of the African race, prevent their future enslavement, make them citizens, prevent discriminating State legislation against their rights as freemen, and secure to them the ballot.”

    – Supreme Court opinion in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880):

    “The 14th Amendment was framed and adopted … to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that, under the law, are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment whenever it should be denied by the States.”

    – Supreme Court opinion in Neal v. Delaware (1880) (majority opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, who was the only dissenting vote in Plessy v. Ferguson):

    “The right secured to the colored man under the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws is that he shall not be discriminated against solely on account of his race or color.”

    – Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884):

    “The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was … to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States. … The evident meaning of (the words, ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’) is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. … Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized. …”

    But where does this mythical right come from? Again from the article:

    One has to leap forward 200 years from “the founding of the republic” to find the first claim that kids born to illegal immigrants are citizens: To wit, in dicta (irrelevant chitchat) by Justice William Brennan, slipped into the footnote of a 5-4 decision in 1982.

    And who pray tell is William Brennan?

    He was another ridiculous choice for the Supreme Court made by a new deal Republican(Eisenhower)

    The establishments of both party are in on this assault on the sovereignty of the the citizenry of the United States as they purposefully leave the border open and sue and intimidate anyone who seeks to do so. They deliberately let this situation fester and then try and force us to absolve them of their treachery through not enforcing law and through obloquy and slander.

    They put forth the false dilemma that if we can’t defenestrate them all at once we can’t remove any thus we may as well get used to it. This is them allowing an invasion and demanding we let them get away with allowing it. CALL THEM ON THIS MALFEASANCE.

    They have declared war and are using these aliens as fodder backed up by our force of arms to make us capitulate.

    I for one will not. They need to be made pay the price for their treachery…Soon.

  3. 09/04/2015 00:39

    Sweet!

  4. 09/04/2015 00:40

    Precisely. Exactly. But what have we got in SCOTUS? There’s the question.

  5. 09/04/2015 00:41

    Thank you. This is some serious important shit!

  6. 09/04/2015 11:00

    Thank you for this reblog. This is some “viral grade” stuff.

Trackbacks

  1. BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: September 3, 2015 | boudicabpi2015
  2. BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: September 3, 2015 | Boudica2015
  3. BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: September 3, 2015 | Boudica BPI Weblog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: