Skip to comments.Ann Coulter: JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES (Not The Constitution)
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
“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...
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.
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’s a gift... and a curse.
That is so true.
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.....
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.
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.
ping for later
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!
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.
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?
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.
Love this article. Finally! An explanation!
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.
I highly doubt it, unless either the boat was in a US port or US territorial waters (or the parents were Americans).
..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
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.
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.