MEX-OCCUPIED COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ALONE PUTS OUT MORE THAN ONE BILLION DOLLARS FOR MEXICO'S INVADE PREGNANT AND SIGN UP FOR WELFARE PROGRAM
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION
MAP OF THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION:
IMMIGRANT SHARE OF ADULTS QUADRUPLED IN
232 COUNTIES
"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 approximately 500,000 (dated) "Anchor Babies" born every year."
“Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal
and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the
country through the process known as “chain migration” whereby newly
naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the
U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on
track to import roughly 15
million new
‘Unbridled Immigration, Legal and Illegal,
Is Taking the Country Down’
“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
This annual income for
an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in
federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
A study by Tom
Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25
percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That
totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled
illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified
illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER
Trump Challenges Birthright Citizenship
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was what we call an “originalist” when it came to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. He believed the only way to read the Constitution was in the context of the times when its provisions were written which formed the intent of those who wrote and later amended it. We could only interpret what they meant by reading what they wrote through the filter of the events of their day, not our day.
The issue of the 14th Amendment and whether it conveys birthright citizenship just from being born on American soil has resurfaced in the context of the current debate on immigration and border security. The answer can be found in looking at the times in which it was written and examining the actual words and thoughts of those who wrote it.
The 14h Amendment was written in 1868 after a bitter Civil War ended slavery. It was written to ensure the civil rights of freed slaves and to correct the injustices spawned by the 1857 Dred Scott decision which denied that blacks were entitled to citizenship under the Constitution. Surely it cannot be seriously argued that the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind babies born to residents of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador who managed to sneak their pregnant bodies past a U.S. Border Patrol that didn’t exist yet in violation of immigration laws that hadn’t been written yet?
Like abortion rights, which were divined from the “penumbras” and “emanations” said to be lurking somewhere in that document, supporters of birthright citizenship say, well, the language is imprecise and the authors didn’t really mean to exclude the offspring of Guatemalans born in states which didn’t exist in 1868. This is a clear violation of the Scalia originalist doctrine. The Constitution is not a living document and should be read in the context of the events of 1868, not 2019.
President Trump has once again noted the absurdity of the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment that invented the concept of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. As reported by FoxNews:
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, President Trump again threatened to end what he called the "ridiculous" policy of birthright citizenship, which awards citizenship automatically to those born in the United States."We're looking at that very seriously," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. "Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land -- you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby's now a U.S. citizen. We're looking at it very, very seriously ...It’s, frankly, ridiculous."
Indeed it is, according to Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky, who argued that birthright citizenship supporters play word games to justify their position:
In an op-ed published last year by FoxNews.com, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky said critics "conveniently ignored or misinterpreted" the 14th Amendment's requirement that illegal immigrant children be "subject to" the jurisdiction of the United States."The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted," Spakovsky wrote. "But it does not place them within the political 'jurisdiction' of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment."Spakovsky added: "Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction -- which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws -- and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well."
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…”
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
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:
John Eastman of the Claremont Institute testified before the subcommittee, saying, the Supreme Court has never actually heldthat anyone who happens to make it to U.S. soil can unilaterally bestow citizenship on their children merely by giving birth here.Although such an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has become widespread in recent years, it is not the understanding of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, or of those who ratified it, or of the leading constitutional commentators of the time. Neither was it the understanding of the Supreme Court when the Court first considered the matter in 1872, or when it considered the matter a second time a decade later in 1884, or even when it considered the matter a third time fifteen years after that in the decision many erroneously view as interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, whether their parents were here permanently or only temporarily, legally or illegally, or might even be here as enemy combatants seeking to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.Eastman argues that the modern view of the Fourteenth Amendment ignores a key phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Mere birth on U.S. soil just isn’t enough. “A person must be both ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ and ‘subject to its jurisdiction.’”
In a interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July, Michael Anton, a former Trump national security adviser, pointed out:
… "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret -- subject to the jurisdiction thereof…"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”
There may be hope though for 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. The misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation or even by executive order. We can correct it 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 former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Dailyand freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, ReasonMagazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
Trump: ‘Very Seriously’ Looking at Ending ‘Ridiculous’ Anchor Baby Policy
2:58
President Trump says he is “very seriously” looking at ending the current policy of birthright citizenship in the United States, whereby hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children to illegal aliens — often referred to as “anchor babies” — are rewarded with American citizenship every year.
While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Trump said his administration was reviewing an executive order to end the “ridiculous” birthright citizenship policy.
“We’re looking at that very seriously — birthright citizenship. Where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations the baby is now a U.S. citizen,” Trump said. “We’re looking at it very, very seriously.”
“We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously,” Trump continued. “It’s, frankly, ridiculous.”
Nearly a year ago, Trump promised that he was readying an executive order to end birthright citizenship, but the issue has been stalled since October 2018. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted birthright citizenship, and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
The children of illegal aliens, after being granted birthright citizenship, are able to anchor their illegal alien and non-citizen parents in the U.S. and eventually are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the legal immigration process known as “chain migration.”
Today, there are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S., exceeding the annual roughly four million American babies born every year and costing American taxpayers about $2.4 billion every year to subsidize hospital costs. Every year, about 300,000 anchor babies are born in the country and as of June, there has been an average of about 124,000 anchor babies already born this year.
The sanctuary state of California is home to at least 1.2 million anchor babies under the age of 18, as Breitbart News reported. This is roughly twice the total population of Wyoming. The total of anchor babies under the age of 18 in ten U.S. states is more than four times the population of Boston, Massachusetts.
In total, there are now an unprecedented 62 million immigrants and their U.S.-born children living across the country, as Breitbart News has previously reported. As of 2017, there were 17.1 million U.S.-born minor children of immigrants in the country.
The U.S. is nearly alone in granting birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals and, specifically, illegal aliens. For example, the U.S. and Canada are the only two developed nations with birthright citizenship. On the other hand, countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, and Germany all have either outlawed birthright citizenship or never had such a policy.
Most recently, Breitbart News reported how pregnant migrant women are waiting in shelters in Mexico with the hope that they will be granted asylum in the U.S. to secure American citizenship for their children.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
No comments:
Post a Comment