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

Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter: JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES (Not The Constitution)
AnnCoulter.Com ^ | August 4, 2010 | Ann Coulter

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


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14th; 14thamendment; anncoulter; brennan; citizenship; constitution; coulter; illegal; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Read the rest at AnnCoulter.Com
1 posted on 08/04/2010 3:23:22 PM PDT by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Here's a nice picture of Ann, from www.imbringingbloggingback.com:


Ann Coulter and Jimmie Walker at the TV Land Awards

In ANOTHER picture from that event, however, Ann is acting just a little bit crazy...

2 posted on 08/04/2010 3:24:43 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Someone take that lady out for a steak...and potato


3 posted on 08/04/2010 3:28:03 PM PDT by Taffini ( Mr. Pippen and Mr. Waffles do not approve and neither do I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
thought liberals didn't like the constitution and want to destroy it..sees like they want it when its convenient
4 posted on 08/04/2010 3:28:28 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog; jellybean; knews_hound
So it was Justice Brennan who unconstitutionally decided that illegal criminal insurgent invaders to our country can have babies that are citizens.

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

5 posted on 08/04/2010 3:28:53 PM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

thought liberals didn’t like the constitution and want to destroy it..seems like they like it when its covenient


6 posted on 08/04/2010 3:29:16 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
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.)

Making no distinction between lawful and unlawful is a bedrock of the dictatorship, where only the will of a dictator or of a few on top matters.
7 posted on 08/04/2010 3:30:00 PM PDT by alecqss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

Fascinating.

8 posted on 08/04/2010 3:31:44 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Speaking of anchor babies, I have to relate a Coast Guard story regarding anchor babies.

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?

9 posted on 08/04/2010 3:33:00 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

Thank you, Ann. I don’t know what these people are doing focusing on the 14th Amendment.


10 posted on 08/04/2010 3:34:23 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Obama: "I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog

No. Way too skinny.


11 posted on 08/04/2010 3:35:01 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Obama: "I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

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.


12 posted on 08/04/2010 3:37:12 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert
Oh they love the constitution because they can buy a judge to declare it says anything they want it to.

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.

13 posted on 08/04/2010 3:37:57 PM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

>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.”


14 posted on 08/04/2010 3:38:40 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Is there anything these damn Liberals have done that is not harmful to this country? One thing?
15 posted on 08/04/2010 3:38:54 PM PDT by Gritty (Washington no longer has a government; rather, it has a gangster regime - Jeffrey Kuhner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
...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.)

Here's MORE from anncoulter.com:
..."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


16 posted on 08/04/2010 3:39:18 PM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taffini

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.


17 posted on 08/04/2010 3:39:35 PM PDT by Marty62 (marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

To a liberal the Constitution is only for controlling people and enabling the government.


18 posted on 08/04/2010 3:39:35 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Satan is a Democrat and Obama is his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

9 justices is just tradition... not in the Constitution at all.


19 posted on 08/04/2010 3:40:38 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Oh, you have a dark sense of humor, lol!


20 posted on 08/04/2010 3:40:40 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

“So it was Justice Brennan who unconstitutionally decided that illegal criminal insurgent invaders to our country can have babies that are citizens.”

Yes. And this is why our passive acceptance of someone FURTHER to the left is so disgusting...I can’t imagine what she will “slip in” in the next 30-40 YEARS on the bench...


21 posted on 08/04/2010 3:42:29 PM PDT by jessduntno (I wonder...how will third Manassas turn out?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
I don't know about the boat birth thingie.

Ask a liberal judge, I'm sure it would be ok with one of those un-American leftists traitor lovers of law breakin' criminal insurgent invading colonists.

22 posted on 08/04/2010 3:42:38 PM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Bookmark


23 posted on 08/04/2010 3:43:02 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("In 1964 the War on Poverty Began --- Poverty won.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

I have never seen anything in the U.S. Code that says that the children of Haitians born on a U.S.-flag vessel outside of the U.S. territorial waters would be a U.S. citizen at birth. In fact, being born in a U.S. embassy or U.S. military base abroad does not by itself confer U.S. citizenship at birth.


24 posted on 08/04/2010 3:43:40 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

It’s a gift... and a curse.


25 posted on 08/04/2010 3:43:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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

That is so true.

26 posted on 08/04/2010 3:44:27 PM PDT by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
I have never seen anything in the U.S. Code that says that the children of Haitians born on a U.S.-flag vessel outside of the U.S. territorial waters would be a U.S. citizen at birth. In fact, being born in a U.S. embassy or U.S. military base abroad does not by itself confer U.S. citizenship at birth.

It might have just have been a misunderstanding of the law.

Another, more sinister possible reason: a ploy to have sex. Not that a man would ever resort to such a ruse.....

27 posted on 08/04/2010 3:47:11 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
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."

Sorry, Ann .... questions of anchor babies aside, that quote doesn't really say what you want it to say. The guy was talking about "the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." It simply does not cover the example you gave above.

28 posted on 08/04/2010 3:55:00 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

Border is open because it allows NWO gang opportunity to kill two birds with one stone:

In order for NAU - North American Union to become an entity comparable to EU and a reality, they need to change demographics.

They love the ensuing chaos, people are distracted fighting each other (liberal vs. conservative, mexican vs. caucasian, citizen vs immigrants, have vs have-nots), instead of paying attention to why the door has been opened in first place. The worse the chaos gets, better opportunity to strengthen the Govt’s stranghold on power, so they can bring “peace” to the people and “protect” them. If it turns into low grade civil war, then the elites get extra benefit of population reduction.

Immigration can also be used to blame the bankruptcy of the Nation, which is caused by bankers themselves, the cycle of inflation and deflation so they can pick up everything people have built over years with their sweat and blood, with pennies on the dollar.

No one knows who central bankers are and what they look like. Everyone knows what illegal immigrants look like. Get masses to vent against them, while the main culprits stay out of harms way.

None of these problems can be solved individually as they are merely symptom and by-product of the primary problem - the NWO master plan that guides all of these decisions and controlled chaos.


29 posted on 08/04/2010 3:56:34 PM PDT by True_Kon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

ping for later


30 posted on 08/04/2010 4:04:45 PM PDT by Vinnie (You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Jihads You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: True_Kon

So, all a women has to do is lay her hips across the border and leave her head in Mexico or Canada. If the kids pops out in the USofA then he/she is a citizen!


31 posted on 08/04/2010 4:13:12 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Taffini

I don’t think anyone would desire to be that thin unless their ‘celebrity’ forced them to....maybe she just has trouble gaining weight. Her legs look as thin in a skirt as Amy Winehouse’s.


32 posted on 08/04/2010 4:24:36 PM PDT by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
At this site is a proposed "fix" which will only make matters worse. I notice that Rep. Miller of California is a co-sponsor, good for him!

Bill h1868

Read the comments, they are frightening. Many people agree to "sharing the wealth" to the extent that a jobless family about to be foreclosed on is obligated to share whatever they still have because the do-gooders can't look an anchor baby in the eye and say, 'sorry.'

Just as with government, there is no limit to the money families can produce. Cities, states and the federal government going broke is not a sufficient signal to these folks that something is fatally wrong with that mindset.

The proposed bill also repeats a fatal mistake of the past; it requires only one parent to be a citizen, without qualification. A citizen for ten minutes? for two years? For five? A husband or wife, or a "borrowed" friend as one of the parents to qualify for anchor baby status? A hired citizen paid to commit fraud to gain anchor baby status? Is a DNA test required?

33 posted on 08/04/2010 4:25:38 PM PDT by Publius6961 ("In 1964 the War on Poverty Began --- Poverty won.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonDog
Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

Well, that's not entirely correct. Clement L. Bouve represented Choa Tea before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549 (1913). Bouve argued that the Philippines had no right to deport Choa back to China and to exclude him from readmission. He lost.

34 posted on 08/04/2010 5:05:23 PM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

Love this article. Finally! An explanation!


35 posted on 08/04/2010 5:46:19 PM PDT by GVnana (I'm a Mama Grizzly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

This can be overturned just as McCain/Feingold was. As usual the swing judge Kennedy will most likely have the final say as to whether the USA will grow a spine and return to the original intent of the 14th or allow itself to remain a doormat.


36 posted on 08/04/2010 5:51:14 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
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?

I highly doubt it, unless either the boat was in a US port or US territorial waters (or the parents were Americans).

37 posted on 08/04/2010 5:55:47 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

sfl


38 posted on 08/04/2010 6:06:39 PM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taffini

..and somebody put Mr. Walker on a diet.

__________________

Help Texas watch her borders. Watch live on 14 cameras and report illegals. Night cams in operation

http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg

.


39 posted on 08/04/2010 6:57:13 PM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Sorry, Ann .... questions of anchor babies aside, that quote doesn't really say what you want it to say. The guy was talking about "the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." It simply does not cover the example you gave above.

Read the first part of the sentence:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

Yes, it does.

40 posted on 08/04/2010 7:39:01 PM PDT by Steve1789 (Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -A.L.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
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.

41 posted on 08/04/2010 7:52:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve0113
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..." Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. You can't just chop the sentence. The first part describes the part I quoted. If he were making a laundry list, there'd be an "or" in there. But there's not.

Basic grammar....

42 posted on 08/04/2010 7:52:16 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Taffini

and ice cream...and peach cobbler...and wine and maybe some Krispy Kreme donuts. Fifteen or twenty pounds properly distributed would do wonders for her.


43 posted on 08/04/2010 7:54:39 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a leftist is like trying to catch sunshine in a fish net at midnight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

A U.S. Flagged vessel, whether merchant or government, is U.S. Territory and any person born, or having died or married on the vessel is recorded in the official logbook and such is reported to the nearest U.S. Consul In a foreign port or to the shipping commissioner in a domestic port.


44 posted on 08/04/2010 9:45:53 PM PDT by ThirdMate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

A U.S. Flagged vessel, whether merchant or government, is U.S. Territory and any person born, or having died or married on the vessel is recorded in the official logbook and such is reported to the nearest U.S. Consul In a foreign port or to the shipping commissioner in a domestic port.


45 posted on 08/04/2010 9:45:53 PM PDT by ThirdMate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Syncro; carlo3b; stanz; gakrak; massfreeper; hosepipe; Donald Rumsfeld Fan; MadLibDisease; fffff; ..

Let me know if you'd like to be added to the Ann Coulter ping list.

46 posted on 08/04/2010 10:34:32 PM PDT by jellybean (Bookmark http://altfreerepublic.freeforums.org/index.php for when FR is down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jellybean

Hiya jellybean!!!!!!!


47 posted on 08/04/2010 11:01:05 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

48 posted on 08/04/2010 11:51:49 PM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
49 posted on 08/04/2010 11:56:49 PM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert
...thought liberals didn't like the constitution and want to destroy it..seems like they want it when its convenient

They're all for it when The Constitution works for them; when it doesn't, then they move on to the living Constitution argument.

50 posted on 08/04/2010 11:58:47 PM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next 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