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 previous 1-5051-58 last
To: Syncro

Justice Brennan may have decided on his breakfast, the morning of that fateful decision. He cetainly did not produce, by himself- a seemingly minor footnote to obscure any decision. Not without a winked nod, from the exec & legislative branches! So, what did President Ronald Regan’s administration have to say prior, during or after this bs? Nothing but minor public annoyance “debating words.” And then, lo & behold- “Congrats, to all involved.”


51 posted on 08/05/2010 12:27:09 AM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi; OneWingedShark
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.

I think the presidential candidate should name his own SCOTUS choices openly before the election, and defend his/her choices before the electorate. Second, limiting Congress to and advise and consent role is a mistake.
Congress, as presently constituted with no input from the state governments, is not fit to consent to SCOTUS nominees, let alone anything more than that. Third, having only 9 justices is a mistake for a branch of the federal government.
Agreed, tho the shark is correct that the size of the court isn't in the Constitution. It should be, and IMHO 11 justices would be about right. Fourth, giving lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is a mistake.
Agree, I think. My preference for 11 justices is based on the idea that each POTUS should name 2 justices, and that they should retire after 22 years. They should be in their late 40s/early 50s when named, and should retire by about the age of 80. OTOH there could be a case for giving the states a mechanism for voting justices off the island before 22 years.

Keeping the court at 9 justices and retiring them after 18 years works too, but it seems to give a two-term POTUS too much input into a nine-justice court.

I hadn't previously thought about it, but maybe on the "put all your eggs in one basket - then watch the basket" theory, the court should actually be reduced to seven - and each POTUS would name only one justice for each term he's elected to. But that would map to a 28 year term for each justice . . . if you reduced it to five justices, that would map to 20 year terms.


52 posted on 08/05/2010 3:25:06 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ( DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Howdy onyx!


53 posted on 08/05/2010 4:53:34 AM PDT by jellybean (Bookmark http://altfreerepublic.freeforums.org/index.php for when FR is down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
...

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.

Excellent points, thanks!
54 posted on 08/06/2010 8:53:23 AM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GVnana; SunkenCiv
Yes, me too!

The post below quoted from the article explains a lot, and is quite clear.

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 Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:52:15 PM by SunkenCiv

55 posted on 08/06/2010 9:11:07 AM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Judiciary ping.


56 posted on 08/08/2010 4:28:27 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Want stimulus? Look to Harding, JFK, and Reagan. Tax cuts work. FAnnie/FReddie hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March; All
The whole column for archival purposes:

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.)

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 -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."

In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106


57 posted on 08/13/2010 4:26:05 PM PDT by Syncro (November is hunting season. No bag limit-Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

Thank you. Copied it.


58 posted on 08/15/2010 6:02:54 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March (Want stimulus? Look to Harding, JFK, and Reagan. Tax cuts w. fiscal restraint -- works every time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


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