Democrats Scam Blacks! "Birthright" Citizenship a Fraud! (Jesse Lee Peterson Interview)

Spread the word!

There are arguments that can be made both ways.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

“Be it enacted...That 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....”

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/

“...it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The 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.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means.”

“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

— Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

“The author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was Senator Lyman Trumbull.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

“The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

images of case decision, which concerned voting rights:
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep112/usrep112094/usrep112094.pdf

Arguably supporting the broader leftist view:

“The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This 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 [emphases added], 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
— Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

There were also comments on the Chinese in California of strikingly similar nature to those made about Central Americans today. I didn’t notice any objection to one Senator’s belief that the Chinese children born here should get US citizenship, however, the potential impact of this was strongly minimized.

PDF text of Elk vs. Wilkins at

https://openjurist.org/112/us/94

“The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States....Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any state. General acts of congress did not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.”

Stefan Molyneux drills down in: The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship

Only incorrectly if arguing that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the Constitution, because it is not, period, end of argument.

This man played a major role in that incorrect argument that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the Constitution:

Image result for Justice William Brennan
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. A recess appointment by President Eisenhower (big mistake)

The anchor baby scam was invented 36 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fake News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance. One Commie Judge overthrew the Constitution?

SOURCE

Eisenhower admitted he should have never appointed this NJ Democrat to the Supreme Court.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

“Be it enacted...That 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....”

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/

“the language proposed in this constitutional amendment is better than the language in the civil rights bill. The object to be arrived at is the same.”

[Senate debate]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=15

The Senate debate indicated that the children of law abiding civilized Indians in New York State were to be made citizens.

The Senate debate indicated that the children of Indians running amok out west were not to be made citizens.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was not merely for blacks.

That's true, but it amounted to only about 8% of the American Indian population, but it included 100% of black Americans born into slavery in this country, as well as, those brought here by force. But the 14th Amendment was motivated by southern Democrats refusal to recognize black Americans as Americans, and denying them the vote on that basis.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I.

The privileges of citizenship, however, were largely governed by state law, and the right to vote was often denied to Native Americans in the early 20th century.

In 1948, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a provision of its state constitution that kept Indians from voting. Other states eventually followed suit, concluding with New Mexico in 1962, the last state to enfranchise Native Americans.

Even with the lawful right to vote in every state, Native Americans suffered from the same mechanisms and strategies, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud and intimidation, that kept African Americans from exercising that right. In 1965, with passage of the Voting Rights Act and subsequent legislation in 1970, 1975, and 1982, many other voting protections were reaffirmed and strengthened.

He should have appointed Dewey. I for the life of me cannot see why he chose Brennan.