Posted on 08/04/2010 3:23:17 PM PDT by Syncro
JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES
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.)
Read more at AnnCoulter.Com
Read the rest at AnnCoulter.ComSo 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.
In ANOTHER picture from that event, however, Ann is acting just a little bit crazy...
Someone take that lady out for a steak...and potato
An influx of Mexicans and Islamists have been dropping their offspring on our soil every since.
The mid-easterners fly into places like Dearborn etc, drop their babies, grab their receipt stamped "citizen" and return to their Islamic terrorist countries to wait til Islam gets more ingrained so they can come back and enjoy sharia law.
Or stay and bring their families to enjoy welfare etc on our dime. All because they have a unconstitutional faux citizen baby
thought liberals didn’t like the constitution and want to destroy it..seems like they like it when its covenient
Fascinating.
During the Haiti flotilla during the late 80s or early 90s, a CG Ensign told me that when she was on patrol duty and her ship rescued Hatians from rickety, often overcrowded ships, they would be berthed on deck as the ships compartments were taken and for a number of other good reasons. She said that a number of the women were pregnant, and that they would be having lots of sexual activity. The idea was that the sex might induce labor, and if a baby was born aboard a US ship, that would qualify as an anchor baby, and would be a path to the US for all the baby's family.
I honestly belive this Ensign was accurately portraying what happened on patrol, but any idea if this is true? A baby, born on the high seas, under these circumstances would be a US citizen?
If true, this is bizarre. Anyone here know if this is fact or fiction?
Thank you, Ann. I don’t know what these people are doing focusing on the 14th Amendment.
No. Way too skinny.
One of the few areas where I would criticize our Founders is the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, having the President choose those who will serve on the Supreme Court is a mistake.
Second, limiting Congress to and advise and consent role is a mistake.
Third, having only 9 justices is a mistake for a branch of the federal government.
Fourth, giving lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is a mistake.
Just like they bought judges to declare the AZ border enforcement law and the no sodomites can marry in CA law null and void.
This has to be stopped.
Coulter is a Constitutional lawyer btw.
>Speaking of anchor babies, I have to relate a Coast Guard story regarding anchor babies.
I was expecting something more along the line of: “babies don’t work as well as anchors as iron does.”
...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."Here's MORE from anncoulter.com:(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..." - Ann Coulter
My Daughter is the same way . Everytime I see her my first words are “Don’t you eat?”
But, Thank you ANN. Great work.
Time to correct this attrocity.
Although I happened to pause on Hardball and heard Marco Rubios assistant say he is against clarifying this glaring ERROR.
To a liberal the Constitution is only for controlling people and enabling the government.
9 justices is just tradition... not in the Constitution at all.
Oh, you have a dark sense of humor, lol!
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.