“Through
love of having children we're going to
take over."
Augustin Cebada, Information
Minister of Brown Berets,
militant
para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an
Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
“The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their
media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled
in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would
legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy
Institute.”
The Shocking Staggering Cost of Mexico’s
Invasion, Occupation, Looting and Crime Tidal Wave…. Then they go out and vote
Democrat for more!
70% OF
ILLEGALS GET WELFARE!
“According
to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican
illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”
Donald Trump took a lot of heat when he announced his candidacy for President, stating that he would build a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville and make Mexico pay for it, all to keep Mexico’s “unwanted” and “undesirab...
Time to End Birthright Citizenship
Donald Trump
took a lot of heat when he announced his candidacy for President, stating that
he would build a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville and make Mexico pay
for it, all to keep Mexico’s “unwanted” and “undesirables” from flooding the
United States. In August 2015, on the campaign trail, he shed light on a flawed
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has caused much of the problem of
illegal immigration.
That
misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights
of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee
of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make
you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you
not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you
to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.
During the
campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship
the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration. He would end it, and as for
family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the
other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As the New York Post reported:
Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American
borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper
he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally
protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside
the US.
“They have to go,” Trump
said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden,
nobody knows... the baby’s here.”
Birthright
citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European
brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.
As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright
citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:
The United States is one
of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on
every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is
the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such
status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and
benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and
freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this
program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.
The costs of
birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs
of what is called “chain migration. Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor
others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant
women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth
here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth As Ian Tuttle writes in National Review:
Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s
fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid
$35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state
media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States;
other estimates skew as high as 60,000…
The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted figures
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child born in 2013
would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday. Given
that illegal-alien households are normally low-income households (three out of
five illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty
line), one would expect that a significant portion of that cost will fall on
the government…
There are long-term
costs, too. U.S.-born children of illegal aliens can sponsor the immigration of
family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an
overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own; at 21, he can sponsor
parents and siblings…
Trump said he
would end birthright citizenship and critics have said that the task, even if
justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution.
In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment -- only correctly
interpreting it -- perhaps through clarifying legislation.
The Fourteenth Amendment, passed, on July 3,
1866, reads, “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.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights
of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scottdecision
held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.
In testimony
before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law
professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued
that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S.
jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children
born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.
During debate
on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added
jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole
criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of
birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians
birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under
the14th Amendment?
Rep. John
Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it
meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States
of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your constitution itself. A natural born citizen…”
Rep. Nathan
Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship
Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality
Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of
parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.
HR. 698
declared: "It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at
birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or
permanent resident aliens." The bill undertook to clarify "subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States" to the meaning originally intended
by Congress in the14th Amendment.
The current
interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake
and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational,
and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system,
a very costly one.
There may be
hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as
President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with
justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be
corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or
legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right -- becoming a U.S. citizen
should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border
Patrol.
Daniel John
Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared
in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine
and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
Donald Trump
took a lot of heat when he announced his candidacy for President, stating that
he would build a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville and make Mexico pay
for it, all to keep Mexico’s “unwanted” and “undesirables” from flooding the
United States. In August 2015, on the campaign trail, he shed light on a flawed
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has caused much of the problem of
illegal immigration.
That
misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights
of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee
of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make
you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you
not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you
to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.
During the
campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship
the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration. He would end it, and as for
family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the
other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As the New York Post reported:
Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American
borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later
released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected
citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.
“They have to go,” Trump
said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden,
nobody knows... the baby’s here.”
Birthright
citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European
brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.
As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright
citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:
The United States is one
of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on
every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is
the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such
status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and
benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and
freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this
program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.
The costs of
birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs
of what is called “chain migration. Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor
others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant
women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth
here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth As Ian Tuttle writes in National Review:
Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s
fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid
$35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state
media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States;
other estimates skew as high as 60,000…
The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted figures
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child born in 2013
would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday. Given
that illegal-alien households are normally low-income households (three out of
five illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty
line), one would expect that a significant portion of that cost will fall on
the government…
There are long-term
costs, too. U.S.-born children of illegal aliens can sponsor the immigration of
family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an
overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own; at 21, he can sponsor
parents and siblings…
Trump said he
would end birthright citizenship and critics have said that the task, even if
justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution.
In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment -- only correctly
interpreting it -- perhaps through clarifying legislation.
The Fourteenth Amendment, passed, on July 3,
1866, reads, “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.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights
of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scottdecision
held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.
In testimony
before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law
professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued
that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S.
jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children
born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.
During debate
on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added
jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole
criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of
birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians
birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under
the14th Amendment?
Rep. John
Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it
meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States
of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your constitution itself. A natural born citizen…”
Rep. Nathan
Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship
Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality
Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of
parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.
HR. 698
declared: "It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at
birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or
permanent resident aliens." The bill undertook to clarify "subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States" to the meaning originally intended
by Congress in the14th Amendment.
The current
interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake
and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational,
and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system,
a very costly one.
There may be
hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as
President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with
justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be
corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or
legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right -- becoming a U.S. citizen
should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border
Patrol.
Daniel John
Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared
in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine
and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
|
ONE AMERICAN
COUNTY….under Mex occupation
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY HANDS MEXICO’S ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS MORE THAN A BILLION PER YEAR.
IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, MEXICANS COMMIT 93% OF THE
MURDERS!
WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING, MEXICO WAS
LOOTING, MURDERING and SENDING BILLIONS BACK TO MEXICO!
THE COUNTY OF MEX-GANG INFESTED LOS
ANGELES PUTS OUT ONE BILLION DOLLARS TO ILLEGALS!
LOS ANGELES: MEXICO'S
ANCHOR BABY BREEDING FACTORY FOR 18 YEARS OF WELFARE. JUMP THE BORDERS, GET
YOUR CHECK IN THE MAIL THE NEXT DAY!
"La Voz de Aztlan
has produced a video in honor of the millions of babies that have been born as
US citizens to Mexican undocumented parents. These babies are destined to
transform America. The nativist CNN reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are
over 200,000 (dated) "Anchor Babies" born every year
whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the figure is closer to 300,000 (dated) . La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is aproximately 500,000 (dated) "Anchor
Babies" born every year."
In the state of California, of which Los Angeles is a large part, most payouts to illegals go first to educate them, and then to jail them after they commit crimes, and then to pay for their medical care as they clog up emergency rooms and help themselves to Medi-Cal benefits from funds they never paid into. Welfare itself rates a distant fourth.
The LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS FOR
WELFARE
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE AMERICA’S POPULATION
IMMIGRANT SHARE OF ADULTS QUADRUPLED IN
232 COUNTIES
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/america-third-world-country-democrat.html
Pelosi: DREAMers’ Parents Did A Great Thing For Our Country By Bringing Them Here Illegally
Watching this, I keep thinking of that Hillary clip from 2014 that made the rounds a few weeks ago in which she said “Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.” Conservatives pointed to that as proof that even the reigning Democratic nominee opposes a DREAM amnesty, but huffy lefties complained that Clinton was being taken out of context. She was referring to children who had *recently* crossed the border, they said, not to children who were brought here years ago and had built a life in America. Obviously Democrats don’t support opening the borders to let any child in whose parents want them to come.
But they do support that, in principle. If that’s not the takeaway from Pelosi’s shpiel here, what is? DREAM kids have contributed much to America, she notes, therefore it’s wonderful that their parents broke the law in bringing them here. (Pause here to reflect on the Democratic leader in the House openly praising illegal immigration as “great.”) Unless she has evidence that child illegals crossing the border today would contribute less than current DACA enrollees, there’s no obvious reason by her logic why the practice shouldn’t be allowed to continue. Which, in fact, is what a lot of Democrats do want, including the lovely people who shut down her press conference a few days ago and whom she won’t criticize here except in the gentlest, most politic terms.
In fact, the point of this grand pander is to assure DREAMers that Democrats won’t stop with amnestizing them but will use a deal with Trump as a “first step” towards amnestizing the heroic moms and dads who dragged them across the border in the first place. It’s chain migration 101, in the same spirit as the executive amnesty Hillary proposed last year in which she promised to legalize the parents of DREAMers if elected. If you’re a border hawk who’s skeptical of the deal being used as a building block to a much bigger amnesty eventually, if not during Trump’s term then during the next Democratic president’s, this is Pelosi telling you you’re right to be. It’s a hugely damaging clip in terms of handing nationalists a weapon with which to oppose a compromise. But she has her own base to please. This’ll please them.
No comments:
Post a Comment