Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance
Immigration News Daily ^ | December 17, 2005 | P.A. Madison

Posted on 12/17/2005 11:39:40 AM PST by Founding Father

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. The record of law is full of references to jurisdiction that had nothing to do with physical location. Take for example title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where is states:

[Any] alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States...

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe. Under the common myth of the meaning -- simply being within the limits of a State automatically places an alien under US jurisdiction for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. It does not as Bingham and Howard plainly makes clear as well as laws regarding the subject at the time also make clear.

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the Civil Rights bill of 1870. Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction "requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; anchorbabies; birthright; citizenship; fourteenthamendment; immigration; mexico
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-93 last
To: sittnick
The comparison between people who are here illegally-and boldly declare their disregard for this country's laws-and United States citizens is what makes so furious.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist in order to discern the difference between an ordinary patron of a large box store and the dozens of illegal day laborers milling around that store seeking work.

They are here illegally, which why so many unscrupulous employers seek to employ them in the first place.

It's always easier to search out scab labor than to actually abide by the standards and practices of a legitimate company.

Someone who has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or those disgusting Matricula Consular ID cards, is not here legally.

They would not have or need those documents if they were legal residents, so your idiotic analogy to Nazi Germany holds no water.

51 posted on 12/18/2005 6:06:50 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; BlackElk
so your idiotic analogy to Nazi Germany holds no water.

Have you ever heard the term, "strawman"? That is when you attack a position that was not taken by your opponent. My position has NOTHING to do with Nazi Germany. The only historical allusions I made were to the Texas territory and the Know-Nothing Party of the mid-19th century. I made NO allusions to Nazis.

Someone who has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or those disgusting Matricula Consular ID cards, is not here legally.

That will be news to my wife, who is a Canadian citizen, and here quite legally. In our first year of marriage, she had an ITIN in order for me to claim her on my tax return. (By the way, she is the mother of my children, and is a home maker, so she is not taking any jobs from American workers.) It took almost five years to get the permanent Green Card. She is not seeking American citizenship, she just wants to live with her husband and children in peace.

It's always easier to search out scab labor than to actually abide by the standards and practices of a legitimate company.
While hiring an illegal is not hiring a scab (unless there's a strike going on, I AGREE that companies that knowingly and purposefully do this are wrong. I just don't think the answer is more federal government tracking of employees (e.g. the national employment database). I am of the mind that there is no such thing as "jobs that Americans aren't willing to do." People who say that (including the president) really mean "jobs that Americans are not willing to do at the wages the employers feel like paying". (E.g. walk up to a guy on the street: "Will you pick grapes for $2.25/hour?" "Heck, no!" "How about for $100/hour?" "Heck yeah!" Somewhere in between is the real wage, normally we should leave it to those two to work it out.) I also don't see why drivers' licenses can be turned into a safety issue. If they have a valid driver's license from whereever they are from, it is legal here under the U.N. Treaty of 1948.

I bring this up because this topic is not just an either/or. One can be concerned about illegal immigration without wanting to wall off the country or create new laws that would have unintended uses in the hands of liberal judges and politicians (e.g. look what RICO got twisted into against pro-lifers).

It shouldn't take five years for a legal immigrant to be processed. Incentives could be used to promote legal immigration (four year enlistment in the U.S. military, and you get to the front of the line, for instance; preference to people who agree to reside in places that are not overbooked [e.g. California, Arizona, Texas, NY]).

While I am not for open borders in this era, I do get perturbed at people who want to restrict both legal and illegal immigration.

You have misrepresnted my position, claimed I made a Nazi comparison when I didn't, and confused an understanding of the 14th Amendment that is different from what you wished it stated with "supporting the open borders people."
52 posted on 12/18/2005 6:50:12 PM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
There is no job that Americans are not willing to do.

This is a convenient excuse used by people who are unwilling-or incapable-of facing reality, which is that the reason these are such low-paid occupations is because we have a glut of illegal labor.

One of the reasons that our agricultural industry is so primitive-in contrast to Australia, which decided to impose limitations on "guest workers" during the 1970s-is because huge agri-businesses have no incentive for innovation-making some of these supposedly unpalatable jobs redundant-when they can just import low-paid scabs-and yes, that is an accurate term to describe what these people are, at least in relation to their employment-from Guanajuato to perform exact same manual labor that their great-grandparents did.

And yes, our massive, untrammeled LEGAL immigration is inextricably linked to the 8-9 million-and that's a conservative estimate, mind you-illegal aliens roaming around this country.

The only people who refuse to see that correlation are the people who think that getting an extra two dollars off on grapes is more important than preserving the internal cohesion of this society.

And one of the reasons that legal immigrants have to wait so long to be naturalized is because of the border-jumpers you OBL's have decided to exalt.

53 posted on 12/18/2005 7:04:53 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; BlackElk

Whatever the future of the Republican Party, it seems to me that illegal immigration is not an answer.

The proposition that one may do wrong to achieve a greater "good" is still untenable.

More and more it emerges (simply read Human Events) that the 'illegal' situation is aided and abetted by employers (and more recently, bankers) who have a very significant dog in the fight.

All of my grandparents (and IIRC all of BlackElk's) arrived here with a suitcase and a dream--but they got here legally.

Reform the system, yes. Continue the current, laughable policy--no. Not even for the "Republican" Party--which as BlackElk knows, is in deep dooo-dooo for good reason: it now contains a number of corrupt, venal, and power-hungry jackasses.


54 posted on 12/19/2005 4:44:45 AM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

If you don't like Dubya then perhaps you will be delighted with Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist because if you continue to play the sucker on this border issue, you will be getting her in 2008 orsomeone very like her every four years until forever after you have thoroughly turned Hispanics into a reliably socialistic voting block in response to nativist Anglo attacks on their people.


55 posted on 12/19/2005 7:35:15 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sittnick; Do not dub me shapka broham; ninenot
Imagine my surprse at learning that sittnick is a member of "the open borders lobby." I certainly can vouch for the fact that he is not. The assumption seems to be that if I ping sittnick or ninenot and if each is not shapka broham, each must be my clone. Sittnick, I and ninenot know better than that.

Another obvious problem for shapka broham in addition to reading comprehension, lack of constitutional knowledge and a cavalier attitude towards the rights of others, is the rather typical assumption, while claiming conservatism, that it is perfectly OK to have a welfare state to take care of nativist grandmas (whatever could be unconservative about that, right Shapka???) so long as we can exclude others from it in spite of the plain language of the 14th Amendment as to equal protection (not just for "citizens" but for all "persons"). The 14th Amendment was improvidently enacted in the aftermath of the late unpleasantness between the Union and the Confederacy but IT WAS ENACTED. Its words, Shapka, ARE WHAT THEY ARE.

The case that you, shapka, have cited was in the era of the claim of "yellow peril" whereby all those Chinese railroad laborers were just obviously going to overrun Anglo America unless our brave Congressional fellows who knew a "master race" when they imagined that they belonged to one acted firmly and finally to establish racial quotas in our laws to protect Chatsworth Worthington from undignified, well: competition, by others. You did not think it a coincidence that one of the litigants was Chinese by ancestry, did you?????

One thing that I believe sittnick, ninenot and I can agree on which shapka seems to blithely ignore is the history of the Know Nothing era which would have included as contemporaries such as Congressman Bingham and Senator Howard in which there was an awful lot of concern for freeing the slaves in certain northern precincts which were also very concerned to keep Catholics out of the United States (complete with the Know Nothings' secret passwords and secret handshakes). As a twelve-year old getting off the boat from Cork, my Irish grandmother got to meet a few aged Know Nothings in 1895 (embittered, angry, furious, utterly exclusionary, dreading the Irish peril) and thereafter. She despised them too. Unlike them, she had good reason. Unfortunately, it led to her voting Democrat until 1968 since she never got over the attitudes of the quite Republican Boston Brahmin types, much less the aging Know Nothings (aptly self-named). In such ways did Clan Kennedy rise to power through the votes of the reasonably resentful.

Most of my German ancestors came here in 1848 when the authorities were not yet in the habit of demanding "papers." One German ancestor (a great grandfather) arrived quite illegally (and absolutely penniless) in 1876 as a 16-year old, stowing away on a boat and being caught half way across the Atlantic and required to work his passage. Thirty years later, he died (of outrageously good living) a quite wealthy self-made man and owner of a distillery, hotel and restaurant/tavern covering an entire city block in Louisville, Kentucky. I had a Scottish/Scots Irish grandfather who arrived from Canada and was quite probably arriving without "papers" in 1901. He witnessed McKinley's assassination at the Buffalo railroad station, was a shirt company executive at Cincinnati and later a prison warden in Vermont before dying in the 1918 Spanish Influenza. I had an English grandfather who (sad to say) probably arrived legally just after honorably completing his service in His Majesty's Navy in the Teddy Roosevelt era. My German grandmother was born of her American citizen mother and was not an anchor baby. I wish they had all arrived here without government approval and that America were a more free country to this day but, alas, facts are stubborn. At least some of my ancestors did not need or have "papers." Good for them and good for their counterparts today.

For those inclined to worry about OBL crossing into Arizona or whatever, we also notice that the son of OBL's late treasurer was arrested in Canada this weekend in NW Canada by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (or "Mountain" Police as the Fox news crawler would have it) and he was not posing as a Mexican without map skills. He is expected to be extradited to the custody of US authorities at Boston in response to an extradition warrant. I have heard no calls to wall off the Canadian border.

56 posted on 12/19/2005 8:15:42 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

In actuality, the government has no authority to pass along any "birthright" qualifications of anything. Birthrights are by nature, passed from parent to offspring - biological or adopted. An illegal alien has no legal US citizenship status he/she may pass along to their posterity - the only "inheritance" rightly due the child is the same illegal status held by the parent. JMO...


57 posted on 12/19/2005 8:26:55 AM PST by azhenfud (He who always is looking up seldom finds others' lost change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Well, if we got rid of our exclusionary immigration laws and restored the situation faced by my ancestors and perhaps yours, all of Mexico might come here "legally." OK, I exaggerate, but not by much.

There are two kinds of wrong recognized by our laws or any one else's. The first and universally accepted kind of wrong is known as "malum in se", evil in and of itself for shapka and those who reside in Rio Linda: murder, rape, robbery, and abortion or lavender hoopla in saner times than our own are all "malum in se."

The second kind of "wrong" is not so universally recognized. It is called "malum prohibitum." Except for those overly wedded to a certain interpretation of Romans (not us Catholics), this would include parking in a no parking zone established for no rational reason, smoking in the tavern of a tavern owner who warns his patrons in advance that he allows smoking, saying critical things against the British PM or the queen in British jurisdiction, resisting Chinese immigration beyond a fixed statutory number, selling free market orange juice in the Soviet Union (they actually executed people for such "crimes"), crossing the Mexican-US border to find good work at good wages to support one's desperately poor family in spite of pecksniff exclusionary "laws" that express obliquely nothing more noble than "we don't want their kind in OUR country." That latter attitude is what my Irish grandmother had to deal with 110 years ago and I am not inclined to be amused yet or to get over it yet or to go Brahmin yet, even if she married a working class English immigrant.

Look hard into the people pushing border mania at the top and you will find the usual gang of suspects: ZPG, Planned Barrenhood et al. We do not need ethnic "quality control" and we never did. Human Events, ACU and other conservative publications and groups are being stampeded by the conceded popularity of the border mania. This nativist baloney started at Natonal Review with the arrival of John O'Sullivan and Peter Brimelow, both Brits with pretensions of British=quality. That does not mean that we and they will not pay the price of adopting nativism as part of conservatism. We forget the lessons learned painfully by our ancestors at our peril.

The USA is continually renewed by the influx of "aliens" seeking the dream that accompanies them and their suitcases. That dream has nothing to do with special interest legislation designed to create a supposed ethnic quality and quantity control.

Just because their are Republican crooks galore in Congress does not mean that I want Hillary in the White House or her minions controlling Congress. It is the GOP that will attempt to hang on (quite temporarily) by Mexican bashing. Those within the GOP welcoming Mexicans will recruit them in the long run as the social conservatives that they are and will be. The Constitution Party is not and never will be viable even if the GOP disappears. Mexicans or socialism (and abortion) forever is the basic dichotomy, regardless of political party.

It is wrong to lie. It was not wrong to lie to Nazis to keep them from knowing about the Jews hidden in one's attic. The "law" of SCOTUS says it is not wrong to murder your unborn child but it is verrrrrry wrong. Neither my conscience nor yours ought not to be placed in trust with the US gummint or any other. The rule of law is dead in the US since at least Roe vs. Wade and will not have even a chance of resurrection as long as Roe vs. Wade stands. A partial "rule of law" may well be worse than none at all.

58 posted on 12/19/2005 8:44:47 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I've got news for you, Corky.

Mexicans do not vote for Republicans.

The editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal, New York Post-sans Scott McConnell-huge agribusiness corporate monstrosities like Archer Daniels-Midland, in addition to the, by and large, utterly worthless Republicans in the United States...

These groupings do not support perpetual, unfettered immigration because they are under the delusion that these people are going to fire off checks to the RNC upon receipt of their first sub-minimum wage pay stub.

In contrast to you, they aren't so dense that they believe millions of Mexicans-who vote for the Democratic Party in numbers upward of sixty percent-are going to become members of the GOP simply because the Democratic Party leadership happens to despise Catholics.

They do so out of venal pecuniary interests.

In fact, everyone who supports open borders-from immigration lawyers, to radical, anti-American groups like MALDEF, La Raza, LULAC, etc., to corporations, to institutions of higher learning-does so for their own personal enrichment, or because doing so advances their own pernicious political agenda.

No one welcomes the dissolution of our borders, the entrance of millions of unskilled, uneducated, potentially criminal aliens-or conversely, the displacement of millions of highly qualified, educated, well-compensated American workers-out of the beneficence of their own heart(s).

The people who actually do believe that our current dysfunctional immigration system is sustainable-or that the few remaining barriers to entry need to be eliminated altogether-are either adamant ideologues who are not susceptible to reason and have no intention of being persuaded that their position is manifestly wrong-such as Tamar Jacoby-or certifiable lunatics, such as yourself.

Furthermore, unlike some other people-who want to be convinced that your puerile fantasy is somehow tethered to reality-I'm not going to be cowed into submission by the seemingly endless repetition of the party line, i.e. O NOES, THE BIG BAD HILLARY MONSTER IS GOING TO GET ME!!! *shudder*

First of all, if HRC does win in 2008 it will be in no small part due to the efforts of terminally stupid individuals such as yourself, who have enabled a party that has refused to adequately address one of the most pivotal issues of our time.

Namely, the invasion of this country by people who have no desire-and certainly no incentive-to become members of American society.

Secondly, I'm not a mindless, GOP-supporting automaton.

My support for that party is conditional, and tethered to how well they perform in certain areas.

And in this respect, they have performed abysmally.

The word "horrendous" would be a charitable description.

What damage exactly is this, in your artful turn of phrase, "anti-Christ" going to do, which hasn't already been accomplished?

Is she going to embrace millions of Mexican nationals that have no claim-legal, ethical or otherwise-to U.S. citizenship, or welcome the PRC-the most brutal, murderous, despotic regime this side of North Korea-into the WTO?

Is she going to empower Pali fascists in Gaza by giving them their very own terror statelet?

OOPS!

I guess she's a little late to the game, since those things have already occurred under a REPUBLICAN administration.

My bad.

59 posted on 12/19/2005 12:20:53 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

I am well aware that Whigs have dominated the discussions or social issues in this country since roughly the end of Truman's regime--and that includes the otherwise useful Bill Buckley, who promotes Whig economic silliness.

But that does not change the 'malum prohibitum' which DOES place ordering on immigration. PJB, who has cranial matter and is NOT a Whig, made the simple proposal that the US should change its immigration laws to decidedly favor children of the West--which would include Mexicans--at the expense of children of the East.

He made that proposal fully understanding that Christianity is the basis of the culture in the US and that preserving the culture is far more important than other considerations.

Frankly, I don't know where GWB is trying to go with his immigration policy, whatever it may be. And yes, Mexican immigrants (by and large) are of the Western variety--and by and large they may see (R)'s values as superior to (D)'s.

But that has yet to play out in real life. Note the fact that the group does NOT vote (R)--and in fact, one of their organizations conducted an illegal demonstration to attempt to secure issuance of Wisconsin Drivers' Licenses to illegals.


60 posted on 12/20/2005 4:47:40 AM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; sittnick
In Whig days, I would have been a Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrat and would have (as I do) despised the memory of Alexander Hamilton, ideological god(or whoever)father of the Whigs. In the late unpleasantness between Union and Confederacy, I would have been a decided proponent of the rights of secession contained in the Constitution of these previously United States. I suspect that PJB would have been the same on both counts. Like J. Edgar Hoover and General George Patton and William F. Buckley, Sr., I would probably have been a Democrat with a fond memory of Theodore Roosevelt well into the 20th Century. I would gladly have voted for Henry Jackson over George "Brainwashed" Romney or had Jeanne Kirkpatrick as Secretary of State over Colin Powell.

The distinguishing characteristic of "malum prohibitum" is that it is arbitrary and not commanded by moral law. It may even be diametrically opposed to moral law as in the Red Chinese "one child" policy (what part of ILLEGAL don't we American pro-lifers UNDERSTAND???) or telling Mexican people whose families are in grinding poverty that they may press their collective noses against our national shop window and drool in envy but not enter to provide work to willing employers or to be customers to willing sellers or to fill in the drastic (50 million and counting) gaps in population resulting from Planned Barrenhood, the Junior League and Roe vs. Wade. Malum Prohibitum on immigration is the other necessary route to Zero Population Growth societal calcification to go with the Malum Prohibitum tendencies of Roe vs. Wade (you have NOW MANY children????? Don't you know about birth control and abortion as necessary?????).

As to how the Hispanics are voting: In the 1970s, they voted 70% Demonrat and 30% Republican. That was then when Puerto Ricans and Cubans were the dominant groups of Hispanic voters, the former heavily Demonrat and the latter heavily Republican but far less numerous. I hear from frie ds in the Northeast that Puerto Ricans are, at long last, beginning to trend slightly in a GOP direction, say 15% or so and that Cubans are slightly more Demonratic, say 25% or so. In 2004, the Hispanic vote, as a whole, was 45% for Dubya, a very substantial increase from the 30% of two decades ago. When entrepeneurship does for Mexicans what it long ago did for similar immigrant groups, the numbers of GOP voters among them will rise fast enough. They are not coming north because they are lazy welfare louts who dream of their grandchildren being lazy welfare louts. They are coming north to escape the Mexican governmental system of enforced poverty and amorality. They probably cannot afford luggage even on a par with your immigrant ancestors or mine but they have the same dreams.

If we can keep our xenophobics, and Planned Barrenhood/ZPG types (posing as Republicans) at bay or, preferably, in cages and incommunicado, that Hispanic vote promises to be a GOP stromghold in another two decades.

Finally, as to PJB, he willingly listens to the likes of Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com. Fortunately, he is not in total compliance with Justin's moonbat brigade but PJB's judgment is not what it used to be.

To give a bit of red meat to the border obsessives: Vietnamese are "children of the east" as are the Hmong (only one of whom gunned down six Wisconsin hunters while) hundreds have gone from from family illiteracy to valedictorians of their high school classes here in one generation, and the Chinese victims of the one-child policy and Tibetans.

Pat also imagines the Zulu as something other than children of the west but he ought to pay a bit of attention to Mengistu Buthelezi, hereditary war chief of the Zulu, a graduate of distinguished western universities and the best friend that this nation ever had in the so-called Third World. As Buthelezi told an audience of 7 million Zulu as South Africa's apartheid was splintering: We have not come this far through apartheid to succumb at last to the slavery of Marxism-Leninism. PJB was wrong when he suggested that a community of Englishmen (assuming it was a representative community) would fit into America and the Virginia hills better than would the Zulu. Mandela was of the Xhosa who were/are/will be the traditional subjugated enemies of the Zulu just as our modern leftist and abortionist Demonratic enemies ought to become our traditional subjugated enemies.

Life would be less interesting if we were mere clones.

Merry Christmas and God bless you and all of yours!

61 posted on 12/20/2005 10:38:53 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Shapka Broham: You may well not be GOP-supporting and you certainly know little if you imagine that upwards of 60% of Mexicans are voting Demonrat. If you insist on being a mindless automaton (your words, not mine), then do so as a Demonrat so that the Mexican vote will more speedily go Republican.

As to the rest of your post, you are wearing down. You do not engage on issues. Primal scream is not conservative. You are tiresome. You are not worthy of attention. You pinged me at the beginning to pick a fight. I have never pinged anything to your attention because I have no real interest in your opinion on the evidence to date. Your attention is simply not worth it.

12 million are already here. It's a start.

Is Corky a reference to my Irish grandmother's hometown and homecounty???? You bet! Proud of each and proud of her! May God bless the noble heroes of the San Patricio Brigade and the Cristeros as well!

You are sooooooo persuasive!

Consider yourself dubbed.

63 posted on 12/20/2005 11:03:20 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
it's a dangerous practice to make arguments based on the framers' "intent" that contradicts the actual language clearly used

For a minute while reading the essay I thought I had entered a parallel universe. Thanks for bringing us back to reality.

64 posted on 12/20/2005 11:09:05 AM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Consider yourself an idiot.

Though I suppose you didn't need me to alert you to that fact.

I honestly couldn't care less what a mindless, knee-jerk supporter of the Reconquista, and the feckless politicians that enable it-who is the epitome of the affected fop, who substitutes ridiculous gestures and meaningless bloviating for his dearth of knowledge-thinks.

The fact that you are under the impression that Mexicans vote for the Republican Party in any large number, in addition to your historical ignorance, is merely illustrative of how little you know.

The fact that some inbred hillbilly-or other members of his fetid gene pool who he pings relentlessly in order to compensate for a manifestly weak argument-doesn't think highly of me isn't really a huge concern in my life.

What does concern me is that there are so many other individuals-many of them apparently ensconced within the ranks of the Bush administration and United States Senate-who share your asinine opinion on this subject.

FYI, "Corky" is not a reference to your ancestry, but a play on your habitual stupidity, which rivals that of the late, unlamented Bayourod.

Perhaps if you were more conversant with popular culture you would have picked up on the reference, but I see that you are as clueless in that regard as you are in so many other areas.

65 posted on 12/20/2005 2:37:38 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Bavarian Leprechaun; BlackElk
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a qualifying factor that must be met. And I can hardly see where a child being born in the U.S. to foreign parents - meets that qualifying factor.

Well, actually these people are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. For instance, if they commit crimes, they can be tried for the crimes. If they are assaulted, the assaulter is tried in a U.S. court.

Now, you might ask, why the qualification? The qualification has to do with the one group that is NOT subject to the jurisdiction, international diplomats. If Boris and Natasha are here as diplomats and Natasha bears little Boris, Jr. he is not granted citizenship. If Boris hits an innocent with his car, he is not sent to the U.S. court, his diplomacy papers are pulled and he is sent home. That is part of the reason why most diplomats are so badly behaved.

BlackElk is a retired attorney with decades under his belt, largely spent defending people whom most freepers are sympathetic to. I am no attorney, but I did take Constitutional Law at the U of Missouri (Columbia) under the quite conservative Prof. Esbeck. Terms like jurisdiction have specific meanings, and arm chair analysis is done at your own risk. At very least, pick up a Black's Law dictionary, and look up the words in question. Then, read up on the history of the Amendment. R"ead up on the history" does not mean "read agenda pieces" regarding your pet issue.
66 posted on 12/20/2005 3:10:09 PM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
...and the feckless politicians that enable it-who is the epitome of the affected fop, who substitutes ridiculous gestures and meaningless bloviating for his dearth of knowledge-thinks.

Gee, is this was the head-shrinks label, "projection?"
67 posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:09 PM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
No, it's called truth.

The fact that illegal immigrants are rapidly depleting every major state's Medicare funds-thereby denying health care to American citizens-depriving honest, hardworking, taxpaying-to an ever-greater degree in order to simply support nonworking, non-taxpaying illegal aliens and tax-eaters-forcing Americans to pay exorbitant college tuitions in order to fund the aspirations of Mexican nationals who are not even in this country legally, the fact that several border states, e.g. New Mexico, California, Arizona, Texas, among others, are groaning under the financial yoke imposed by millions of illegal aliens-including the thousands who are incarcerated in their prisons-is not "projection."

It's reality, and if you folks are too thickheaded to realize it, then that's your problem.

68 posted on 12/20/2005 3:32:41 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Hey, I'm against illegal aliens as well. I just don't agree with you about the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which is what it is whatever we would like it to be.

I also found it funny that your last few posts were long as colorful adjectives and short on substance, and that your last empty post was spent accusing Elk of overdoing it on the language.

You kind of lost me when you admitted that you weren't too big on legal aliens, either. I just don't go for the Peter Brimelow "Shut the door behind me" line.
69 posted on 12/20/2005 3:59:30 PM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sittnick

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/NR020904.htm


70 posted on 12/20/2005 4:24:27 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; ninenot; sittnick
Shapka Broham: Thank you for your unusually sharp insights. You demonstrate regularly that I have a set of enemies that a man can be proud of and I am.

Ninenot and Sittnick: Since Shapka was apparently rude enough to reference you obliquely as either inbred hillbillies or something about a fetid gene pool or whatever without pinging either of you, I thought I should relentlessly ping you yet again to his deep and wondrously complex form of primal scream. I must say that I admire his (?) single-minded devotion to emotional disturbance in spite of the facts.

71 posted on 12/21/2005 12:28:42 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; ninenot; sittnick
You mean, you mean,that as a purported conservative, you are outraged at having to share the socialist programs you cherish with people who are different from you?????? I thought the conservative position was abolishing medical care, public funding of students and other socialist schemes not simply reserving their dubious benefits to those of one's own group.

Shall we follow Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and Adam Smith or Shapka Broham????? The answer seems quite obvious.

For whatever it is worth, I have never objected to the entire US sharing the burdens of the border states in complying with the 14th Amendment mandate (wise or otherwise) to treat all "persons" equally. The feds imposed it and should pay for it.

72 posted on 12/21/2005 12:37:50 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
They're not different.

They're illegal!

How many times does this have to be reiterated before it sinks into that thick skull of yours, which seems to be impenetrable to even the most rudimentary of facts?

Even the most painfully obtuse person, i.e. someone with greater perceptive abilities than yourself, would be able to distinguish between someone who is an American citizen-and is therefore entitled to the full panoply of rights and privileges that attend to that status-and a flagrant interloper who breaks our laws for the specific purpose of exploiting this country's misplaced sense of genorosity.

And no, I don't object to the principle of public education.

What incenses me is the newfound entitlement created by the reckless, Brennan-led majority on the Supreme Court in Plyer v. Doe, which compels American citizens to foot the bill for the education of Mexicans-and any other large group of illegal aliens-who decide to game the system at our expense.

That's what I object to.

73 posted on 12/21/2005 12:47:42 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

To: Founding Father
During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil.

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land.

It doesn't matter what the "view" is or what Congress "declares".
All that matters is the wording of the Constitution.

"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."

If you take what the "view" or what Congress "declares" you have made the Consitution into a "living document". Is that truly what you want?
If you don't like it fight to have it changed.

75 posted on 12/21/2005 6:09:52 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Let me step in here for a moment and dispel some of your misconceptions.
I also try not to engage in irrational debates, BUT, there is rational behind this area of thinking.

I abhor what the numbers of illegal aliens are doing to MY country. I abhor what the number of illegal aliens are doing to the economy of MY country. MY country, not theirs.

This IS an invasion of MY country. Whether Vincente Fox, Martin TORRIJOS Espino, Abel PACHECO, or any other Central American or South American believe it to be a benign invasion is beside the fact.

I am not anti-Hispanic, nor am I anti-Mexican, I am anti-illegal alien.
Many many people have immigrated here from other countries legally. Why, just because they break our laws and enter our country illegally should they be given the same, or better, treatment than our own citizens?
Look at some of the storys that are printed about illegal aliens being given free health care, being released after causing accidents that take lives, a policeman can't even ask if a person is in this country legally.

There are, literally, millions of illegal aliens entering MY country every year. There are already millions upon millions of illegal aliens already in MY country.
It is against the laws of MY country to enter illegally or to employ anyone that is in MY country illegally. Yet employers flaunt this law on a regular basis. Illegal aliens flaunt this law on a regular basis. They use Social Security numbers that are not theirs to gain unlawful employment.
Why should I trust that they won't break other laws when they have already broken, at least, two?

Something needs to be done to stem the tide of the illegal alien invasion. If it is a wall all the way from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, so be it. If it's troops on the border with orders to turn back everyone that doesn't have the correct ID, so be it.

We need some time to winnow the grain from the chaff in the illegal harvest that is already here.

If we institute a guest worker program after that point, make the worker return to the country of their origin before they are eligible to receive the worker permit, period.
If their employer is so enamored of them then their employer should be willing to hold their job and guarantee them a job when they return.

There is too much at stake, MY countries future, to continue to let illegal aliens into MY country at the rate they are entering now.

This says nothing to the fact that we need to secure our borders against entrance by terrorists. That would be for another thread.

When legal aliens come to MY country they assimilate into the American society.
It seems that when illegal aliens come to my country they want to bring THEIR society with them AND have it trump anything to do with the American society.
I don't want to be North Mexico. I don't want to be North Central America.

The United States of America is what we are, but not for long if we continue to allow illegal aliens to enter at the rate they do now.

76 posted on 12/21/2005 6:50:46 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Merry Christmas to you, as well.

I cannot pretend to know PJB's thoughts about various individuals or sub-groups and I do understand your concern about Justin RaiPinkDo.

I think PJB was more 'culture' than 'geography'-oriented in his remarks--which is to say, Christianity was the driver--certainly includes a lot of the Hmong/Vietnamese and a great number of Africans.

That said, you have yet to offer a proposal for immigration reform. Should/should not there be controls of ANY type? If so, what might they be?


77 posted on 12/21/2005 7:27:49 AM PST by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; sittnick
I would take immigration reform a step at a time. First and foremost would be to address the shortage of manpower in our military by offering to those south of the border and, trustworthy others, the opportunity to serve in our military and to earn citizenship for themselves and immediate family members by four years of honorable service.

Secondly, elminate national quotas for immigration. Where they come from has little to do with the desireability of their acceptance here as citizens.

Thirdly, stop making the border states the financial scapegoats for the enforcement of the 14th Amendment's national mandate of equal protection for all persons. Mere proximity to Mexico should not make California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and their immediate neighbors financial fall guys. If we cannot eliminate socialism in one fell swoop, we can make financing it as equal as the distribution of its "benefits."

Fourthly, we can make reasonable demands on all immigrants, like learning English which is the dominant language of our nation and its culture. Otherwise they are at the political mercy of poverty pimps.

Fifth, in the free market we should make a point of offering quality PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS education to their children such as your family and mine are involved in. Erect a wall of separation between school and state to benefit new Americans.

Sixth, make the dolts and slackards at whatever they call the federal program to handle immigration applications this week (INS? DHS? Inert bureaucrat of the month club? Whatever?) actually work their way through the mountain of unread applications in those Kansas warehouses and act efficiently and thoroughly to clear the backlog with a temporary suspension of national and numerical quotas until we make up for 50 million slaughtered unborn infants.

Seventh: It is NOT unreasonable to require immigrants to be sponsored by American citizens of reasonable means who will be responsible for them if they fail financially.

Eighth: Rigorous health evaluations and quarantine as necessary a la Ellis Island.

Ninth: Major adjustment of attitude among many Americans to recognize that the American dream is not dead for us or for the rest of the world and should not be. Significant population growth will lead us back to an invincible and dominant position in the world.

Tenth: Scrap WTO, GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and every other job-bleeding scheme. Instead of exporting the jobs, import the people.

I admit that I am not terribly concerned about limiting immigration generally to arbitrary numbers. I do think PJB has a reasonable idea as to controlling the numbers simply to let us digest the astounding numbers who are so anxious to be among us.

I'll think of more. Thanks for asking. God bless you and yours.

78 posted on 12/21/2005 8:05:02 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I can certainly see that we are not likely to agree on much. BTW, its MY country too.

What did you dispel? What are you afraid of? Did you lose a job to a Mexican? Do you need scapegoats for what you perceive as too little in your paycheck? I fail to grasp any rational reason whatsoever for the hysteria of the anti-immigration crowd. There are plenty of Mexicans in Northwest Illinois. Personally, I don't care whether they are citizens unless they want to vote without that minimal investment. They are very good neighbors here. I don't employ anyone and so I don't employ "illegals."

You take great pains to define yourself as not being anti-Mexican or whatever but that is dissolved by your last two paragraphs and the paranoia about terrorists crossing the border from Mexico when they are far more likely to cross from Canada.

Our troops are badly needed elsewhere and in far too short supply to be wasted on border babysitting.

There are at least twelve million "illegals" in our country. They are people yearning to contribute to our economy, to become Americans and to reap their share of the earnings. They are not "invaders" whatever you may wish to imagine and however convenient it may seem to squeeze immigrants into a non-fitting frame so that you can make believe that your desire to exclude them is constitutional.

Again, what is your CONSTITUTIONAL remedy to stop the immigration? Without one, you are goiung to look an awful lot like the successful buggy whip manufacturer who is just terribly upset at what those newfangled horseless (!!!!) carriages are doing to YOUR country (or more likely your convenience and comfort).

If you are not disturbed by the levels of socialism strangling our country, by 50 million abortions, by "gay" "marriage", by the utter futility of publick skewels brainwashing kids for socialist and anti-moral schemes, one really wonders why you are so upset at the immigration. Are you concerned that innocent Mexican kids might be brainwashed by Publick Skewel socialist teacher?

Do you have a constitutional solution given the requirement of the 14th Amendment's distinction between citizens and persons which requires equal treatment of all persons and not just all citizens?

If you deny the plain meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment, there is no point in your responding to me. The law is what it is.

79 posted on 12/21/2005 8:32:04 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I absolutely agree with your #75. If the actual words of the constitution itself are not dispositive, what could be? Without ambiguity, there is no room for "interpretation." Nor should there be.

I practiced law for twenty-five years. The lawyers and judges whom Freepers reasonably rage against are those who are forever trying to twist the plain meaning of statutory or constitutional words.

80 posted on 12/21/2005 8:38:36 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Your argument is not with me but with the framers of the 14th Amendment.


81 posted on 12/21/2005 8:43:06 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Oh, and I disagree with you and for good reason that the text of the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, your primal screams of frustration notwithstanding.

That you do not object to publick misedumacashun is obvious. You are probably a poroduct of it. What gives you the right, citizen or otherwise, to loot the taxpayers of your community so that the National Education Association may brainwash their charges into leftism, however temporary? If you do not object to that, call yourself what you are and what you are is NOT conservative. What you seem to be angrily defending is a system in which American socialism is to benefit American citizens only. What conservatives do is to oppose socialism period.

82 posted on 12/21/2005 8:48:35 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
What did you dispel? What are you afraid of? Did you lose a job to a Mexican? Do you need scapegoats for what you perceive as too little in your paycheck? I fail to grasp any rational reason whatsoever for the hysteria of the anti-immigration crowd.

My attempt was to dispel your notion that everyone that disagrees with you does so in an irrational manner.
I am afraid that there is a 5th column to institute "globalism" in the USA that is becoming larger by the day. They are illegal aliens from third world countries.

Did I lose my job to a Mexican? No.
Do I need a scapegoat for what I percieve as too little in my paycheck? No, I make a decent living. I'm not rich but I manage to live and put a little aside.
I'm not hysteric about illegal immigration but I see a LARGE problem with allowing undocumented illegal aliens to cross our borders, no matter what country they enter from. You have to admit though, the larger problem is with the southern border.

You take great pains to define yourself as not being anti-Mexican or whatever but that is dissolved by your last two paragraphs and the paranoia about terrorists crossing the border from Mexico when they are far more likely to cross from Canada.

How do my last two paragraphs dispel the fact that I'm not anti-hispanic or not anti-Mexican? I fail to see how my concern for a terrorist coming across the southern border makes me anti-hispanic or anti-Mexican.

They are people yearning to contribute to our economy, to become Americans and to reap their share of the earnings. They are not "invaders" whatever you may wish to imagine and however convenient it may seem to squeeze immigrants into a non-fitting frame so that you can make believe that your desire to exclude them is constitutional.

Some want to contribute to our economy, some want to send everything they get from our economy back to their home countries. Some want to become Americans, some do not.
I disagree that this is not an "invasion". Try sending 12 million people from ANY other country into ANY other country and see what they call it.
It puts a strain on resources, local, state, and federal, of many types that shouldn't have to be borne.
We have a "constitutional" avenue for immigration at this time. Why do YOU want to circumvent it?

If you are not disturbed by the levels of socialism strangling our country, by 50 million abortions, by "gay" "marriage", by the utter futility of publick skewels brainwashing kids for socialist and anti-moral schemes, one really wonders why you are so upset at the immigration.

I AM upset by all these things. But the utter numbers of illegal aliens guarantees that all, or at least most, of these things will become worse, not better.

The plain meaning of the 14th amendment has no bearing on stopping illegal aliens from coming across any of our borders. It has bearing on who is, and who is not, a citizen of the United States.
Just because a child is a citizen doesn't mean the parents are legal immigrants.
Until that child is old enough to petition the government to allow the parents to immigrate legally, it may seem cold hearted, only the CHILD is a US citizen.

I agree that some type of a guest worker program is needed, or the current B1-H(?) program needs to be expanded to allow for unskilled labor.
But until we get a handle on who is, and who is not, allowed to enter our country we are slouching toward third world, at least 2nd world, status.

83 posted on 12/21/2005 9:28:46 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I have more right to that appellation than some inbred yokel who feels that we should sell off our patrimony to the Mexican government in order to drive down the price of consumer goods.

Explaining why the 14th Amendment was not designed to confer citizenship upon anchor babies, or why assimilating millions of unskilled, uneducated, potentially criminal aliens into our labor force-or quite often, allowing them to leech off our social welfare programs-is not a wise policy decision on either a macro or micro level would be pointless, because you are not susceptible to reason and do not ground your belief in rationality.

You have the same mentality as Southern antebellum plantation owners-and other equally clueless Confederates-who felt that they could sustain a modern regional economy upon medieval agrarianism, which was driven primarily by chattel slavery.

No amount of logic will puncture your illusory conviction that turning this country into a replica of our benighted, endemically corrupt third world neighbor-the ambition of so many OBLs such as Tamar Jacoby, the NIF, LULAC and assorted "civil rights" organizations that are attempting to eradicate the notion of an American birth right-is not something to be desired.

It would be akin to arguing with a creationist about natural selection.

84 posted on 12/21/2005 2:36:37 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; ninenot; sittnick
If you think that you are descended from monkeys, I would say that you have made a reasonable case for that proposition as to you.

I would also suggest that those who come here to have anchor babies are very much in favor of citizenship by birthright.

I note that on this conservative website you are still very upset that the Mexicans may upset your chrished socialist welfare system rather than doing what most conservatives do and seek its abolition.

Rationality does not consist in agreeing with your primal screams. Actually, quite the contrary.

Until the 13th Amendment, slavery was quite constitutional. To make slavery unconstitutional required the late unpleasantness between North and South and the deaths of an awful lot of non-slaves on both sides. The 13th Amendment was the old-fashioned way of correcting constitutional deficiencies by amendment. It was in all the constitutions of 1787 and put there by the Founders. If you want to treat Mexicans differently, you will have to follow the example of the War Between the States in all likelihood to repeal or amend the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.

If you are going to keep accusing my ancestors of incest by calling me inbred, you ought to post my family tree to prove it rather than hiding behind your keyboard to avoid the consequences that would follow in, say, a barfight.

85 posted on 12/21/2005 9:36:26 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

We disagree. No animus just disagreement. The Mexicans crossing our borders are much more likely to be social conservatives than the Junior League types or the Planned Barrenhood types.


86 posted on 12/21/2005 9:42:40 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I'm not surprised by your simplistic rendering of a rather complex scientific process, considering your profound ignorance on so many other subjects.

Suffice it to say, your knowledge of evolutionary biology is just as meager and unimpressive as your makeshift, backwoodsman, correspondence course scholarship in the U.S. Constitution.

I've already pointed out that the "rights" bestowed upon illegal aliens did not exist until well into the 20th century.

The relevant 5-4 decision not occurring until 1982!

The fact that subsequent courts have reaffirmed this pernicious decision based upon the principle of stare decisis doesn't make the original decision any less outrageous.

87 posted on 12/21/2005 10:34:36 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Have another banana.


88 posted on 12/21/2005 11:37:52 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

To be honest, I could probably have a more intelligent conversation with that Bonobo ape.

You know what those are, don't you?

Just for your edification, I'll tell you.

They're the closest (extant) relatives to humans, with the exception of chimpanzees.

That's why we share a common ancestor, which is a simplified explanation of the evolutionary concept that you evidently failed to comprehend earlier in this thread.

Apparently, some of us have evolved more than others.

89 posted on 12/21/2005 11:58:31 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
As I posted previously, if you think you are personally descended from apes, you may well be right. Your belief structure provides evidence. Convince Pope St. Pius X of your position, get his concession in writing and get back to me. If you are resisting the immigration because Mexicans believe in God, that would be understandable from your point of view.

I am not familiar with Bonobo apes but then again I don't claim them as relatives because they are not. I will concede that I share ancestry with the lovely young lady on the left but I see no family resemblance between her and Bonobo or whatever its name may be.

Clearly, you are a finished product of publick misedjamikashun. Was Bonobo your principle at John Dewey Public High School or your "science" teacher? You might well have a more intelligent conversation with Bonobo (a match of somewhat equals with the advantage to Bonobo) but would Bonobo experience a more intelligent conversation with you and your ilk than it would with reality-based actual humans????

Some HAVE evolved more than others (assuming falsely that any evolved at all). HUMANS were created in the image and likeness of, well, GOD, by God. Sorry about you guys. Have another banana on Bonobo.

90 posted on 12/22/2005 8:50:20 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
As I posted previously, if you think you are personally descended from apes, you may well be right. Your belief structure provides evidence. Convince Pope St. Pius X of your position, get his concession in writing and get back to me. If you are resisting the immigration because Mexicans believe in God, that would be understandable from your point of view.

I am not familiar with Bonobo apes but then again I don't claim them as relatives because they are not. I will concede that I share ancestry with the lovely young lady on the left but I see no family or species resemblance between her and Bonobo or whatever its name may be.

Clearly, you are a finished product of publick misedjamikashun. Was Bonobo your principle at John Dewey Public High School or your "science" teacher? You might well have a more intelligent conversation with Bonobo (a match of somewhat equals with the advantage to Bonobo) but would Bonobo experience a more intelligent conversation with you and your ilk than it would with reality-based actual humans????

Some HAVE evolved more than others (assuming falsely that any evolved at all). HUMANS were created in the image and likeness of, well, GOD, by God. Sorry about you guys. Have another banana on Bonobo.

91 posted on 12/22/2005 8:51:23 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
I am also deficient in my understanding of such mythical topics as witchcraft as well as "evolution."

The CONSTITUTION says what it means and means what it says regardless of the SCOTUS track record of intellectual and moral dishonesty. Of course, even SCOTUS gets it right once in a while as it apparently did in angering the border yahoos in 1982.

92 posted on 12/22/2005 8:55:32 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
We do not need ethnic "quality control" and we never did.

Gee, I think they used to sing that song in France, Netherlands, Sweeden and a few other European countries that are now beginning to chane a few notes in that tune.

Why don't you just put a sock in it or get on the payroll,. Fox is paying good money for this kind of propaganda, and here you are doing it for free, what kind of capitalist are you?

93 posted on 12/26/2005 5:35:50 PM PST by itsahoot (Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-93 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson