From Larry in Florida:
First one I’ve seen so far.
I guess his supporters do exist!
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
DONATE
Comments
Where does it end?
The beginning- of restoring our Republic!- will start when Donald Trump is inaugurated. It will end when our Republic has been restored; so there’s a long, long way to go.
Go Donald Trump! Make America Great Again!
I ordered this bumpersticker yesterday. Cannot wait for it to get here:
“I Am Ready For Hillary…
To Be Convicted!”
The anchor baby issue polls very well, and Rubio and Bush are both on the wrong side of the issue. As Coulter explains, it is NOT a game of Red Rover, where if they break through the line they win. The public agrees but has been lied to by the open borders nuts, so felt constrained by the constitution. Trump has exposed the charlatans.
Amazing that most of FOX News has adamantly insisted “you’d have to change the 14th amendment”. Ingraham, Ducy, and Hannity have now supported “the Trump position”, which Cruz also held before. Walker supported it recently, but then wouldn’t answer directly for some reason. Fiorina got it wrong, saying we couldn’t change the amendment, but at least she says no citizenship for illegals.
It seems clear that “we” get to determine who becomes a citizen, not the millions of foreign nationals who have been gaining rule over US simply by evading border patrol. We fought wars to protect our heritage of liberty via civic duty. Are we now going to let Democrats overwhelm us by importing half of Mexico and Central America, in the holy name of diversity?
Trump is harnessing the middle America zeitgeist, and perhaps Cruz or Walker will take the reins at some point. But a pox on those that pander/surrender to the illegal invasion and open borders leftists, with the anchor/jackpot baby issue a nice diagnostic device.
Reasonable Conservative minds disagree on the Anchor Baby issue in terms of legalities.
I don’t think there’s much disagreement it is a stupid, self-destructive practice.
The most pragmatic opinion I’ve read was from Andy McCarthy (you know, one of those NRO RINO squishes. HEH!), who suggests the best approach would be to pass a law and throw it into the Supremes’ lap.
Then, we either amend the 14th, or we make it part of the convention on the Constitution. (That last paragraph was mine, not McCarthy).
Pass the law and see if four Supremes will sing in harmony with the wise Latina. But as a campaign issue, there is only one right position as I see it. People are becoming outraged as they learn of the lies and damage intentionally done. The great Trump awakening … whoda thunk it? 🙂
The half dozen articles that have recently emerged on the issue make clear the “subject to” eliminated foreign nationals. O’Reilly screamed “period, PERIOD”. But it is a comma, with a conditional clause following. The writer of the amendment defined the terms clearly in only slightly different language just prior to the amendment. Former slaves yes, foreigners NO.
Coulter is entertaining as usual.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-08-19.html#read_more
yeah, at least trying to amend the constitution would be good, if SCOTUS rewrote law again. FOX talking heads quiver over such a tedious and “divisive” process, so insist we just surrender. If stopping the insane anchor baby flood is divisive, so be it. It must be done. Important issues divide, but this time the left loses in a landslide. Only PC fear impedes them, and Trump is pounding them for it.
The left has lived off their “diversity”, and joy in calling R’s racist for our resistance. But I think we reached peak illegal invasion patience, and Dems should reap the whirlwind. SCOTUS has ruled against Obama at least a dozen times, unanimously iirc. To overrule congress, they’d have to rewrite law even more boldly than they did for ACA. (imo)
“To overrule congress, they’d have to rewrite law even more boldly than they did for ACA.”
Not at all. They’d point to precedent, which is like staying in the ruts for them, instead of doing anything bold…like rejecting precedent in favor of common sense.
But the McCarthy approach as several virtues, one of which is just putting the whole idea very clearly before the public. Another of which is that…regardless of how cynical we may be…nobody can predict how the Supremes will jump on SOME issues. Letting them revisit a bad precedent is no bad thing, and they COULD do right!
If they don’t, it becomes a matter of changing the 14th, which is a steep hill to climb, but given the composition of MOST state legislatures it could happen.
“Not at all. They’d point to precedent”
OK, I guess precedent is treated like law, though many say the Kim ruling was “clearly” wrong. It’s hard for me to imagine our SCOTUS would doom the country with a ruling that any foreign reprobate can attain citizenship by being sneaky, since it seems so clear to me (based on reading these alleged constitutional scholars).
But the start as you say, is to pass the law. Campaigning on that is a clear winner, in my book.
Only liars and kooks say Kim Wong Ark was “clearly” wrong. On the contrary, it’s clearly right, and what’s more important it has been the established law in the USA for over a century. Not even Clarence Thomas would vote to overturn it.
From Adios America. My link from Levin includes a scholar that also emphasizes the distinction of Americans having liberty as opposed to eternal debt to a king or lord. Citizenship is more than being owned by the king based on geography of birth.
That is why the Wong Kim Ark decision was “likely wrong” as I read it, depending on several other “scholars”. “Settled law” based on precedent is just an old rut, not necessarily correct law.
Brennan did note that illegals were not included, except for his footnote which said legal was indistinguishable from illegal, which sounds absurd. Legals have also had some sort of verification and screening.
As many have said, “illegals” were not really addressed, so for those that want to include illegals, THEY are the ones that must amend the amendment. The amendment clarified the contested position on freed slaves, and noted that foreigners and aliens (specifically mentioning diplomats and foreign ministers) were in a different category from the freed slaves.
The amendment did not note that illegals were also foreign and alien and not freed slaves, it did not consider them at all, but they’d “clearly” fit in the latter category of being subject to a foreign jurisdiction, and not in the category of children of citizens. That distinction was clear.
No, he didn’t.
Senator Jacob Howard stated, in 1866:
Foreigners, aliens, and people who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States are not three different kinds of people!!
But the words “Foreigners and aliens” modifies the phrase:
Notice the word AND is misisng from that sentence.
Furthermore he says that that amendmentsettled the question and removed all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States, but that couldn’t be the case, if the citizenship of the parents of someone born on the United States had to be determined – and I think everyone agreed that many people whose parents were not U.S. citizens were themselves citizens. There’d be all kinds of need for further clarification.
They specifically denied Indians (native Americans) because they were not subject to our laws, they had another sovereign, their “Indian Nation”. A special act later made native Americans citizens. Why did that take fifty years if they were so clearly automatically “birthright” citizens?
Babies are subject to their parents, who are subject to their native country. Any birth certificate identifies parents, so it is not so complicated. But at the time most were probably born at home, so there would be no more evidence they were born here than that their parents were illegal aliens. They certainly weren’t subject to state jurisdiction, and were not addressed in the amendment. What was made crystal clear was that states had to accept former slaves as citizens, and not even Indians were included, let alone foreign nationals.
Why would they specifically say foreigners and aliens that were diplomats would not have their children granted citizenship, but then have it be presumed that foreigners and aliens sneaking in WOULD be granted the entitlement of citizenship? It makes more sense that some Mexican couple that wandered over the line and had a kid would still be a Mexican family. People that are here illegally are “not legally here”, certainly not under state jurisdiction (the draft for example), they are still Mexicans with a baby, who is under THEIR jurisdiction.
http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-interviews-a-professor-who-is-one-of-the-foremost-experts-on-birthright-citizenship/
Sorry, your English is deficient.
“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 accredited to the government of the United States ”
It’s a list, a list in which the public speaker left out some words.
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, (who are) aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States ”
Who are, who are, who belong–note the parallel construction.
“But the words “Foreigners and aliens” modifies the phrase: who belong
Within your own incorrect construct, that is backwards. Within your own construct, “who belong” is a subordinate clause modifying aliens, the immediate precedent for “who belong”.
here is from Coulter, on exactly what was the question over which there was doubt, that was clarified once and for all:
You’ve got that backward. “Who belong…” modifies “foreigners, aliens”.
The meaning is clear. Children who are not subject to US law, because they belong to diplomats, are not automatically citizens. Children born here who are subject to US law are automatically citizens.
Sam in Texas, it’s your English that’s deficient. “Foreigners”, “aliens”, and “families of diplomats” can’t be three separate items in a list, because “foreigners” and “aliens” are exact synonyms, and diplomats and their families are a subset of “foreigners, aliens”. If the first clause has already excluded all children who are foreigners, then whom do the next two clauses exclude?
The upshot of Coulter’s position is the same as Bork’s: that since the 14th and 15th amendments were intended to protect the former slaves, they only protect black people, but not white people, Asians, or anyone else. It’s perfectly constitutional to discriminate against them, despite the amendments’ clear language, because that was the issue that was on people’s minds when they ratified the amendment.
But actually even Bork’s position doesn’t help Coulter, because just as racial discrimination against whites was not on anyone’s mind when they passed the 14th amendment, nor were illegal immigrants on anyone’s mind, because there was no such thing. The only “illegal immigrants” at the time were slaves imported after 1808, and even Coulter agrees that their American-born children were included in the 14th.
But in any case, the fact that Sen. Jacob had to specify that diplomats’ children would not automatically be US citizens proves that children born to non-diplomats would be. The exclusion of diplomats’ children from the normal rules of citizenship by birth, of course, goes right back to Blackstone, who defines “natural born subject” as including the foreign-born children of “the king’s embassadors”.
“just as racial discrimination against whites was not on anyone’s mind when they passed the 14th amendment, nor were illegal immigrants on anyone’s mind, because there was no such thing. The only “illegal immigrants” at the time were slaves imported after 1808, and even Coulter agrees that their American-born children were included in the 14th.”
What was on their minds were freed slaves, AND a special notation for separating foreigners and aliens. You resort to calling legal slaves (later freed) “illegal aliens”, but that is false. They came legally, were freed legally, made citizens legally, despite Dred Scott type efforts to nullify their new citizenship. Freed slaves were made citizens, and their children are hence citizens same as white citizens have citizen babies.
The noted exception to that birth right would include “illegal aliens” in the latter group of foreigners and aliens, not in the American citizen group with freed slaves. It specifically noted freed slaves (and hence their children) were included among the (white) citizens. The strict language does not flip foreigners or aliens into citizens, just because non-diplomat foreigners/aliens were not mentioned. It only solidified the status of the freed slave as a federal citizen.
The strict language and all the context make that clear.
Midwest Rhino to Milhouse:
You may not be aware of it, but there were slaves imported after 1808 (or people imported as slaves after 1808)
There was especially a small revival of the slave trade in South Carolina around 1857 or 1858 or so.
They were still not, in any sense, illegal residents, because the law didn’t chase after anybody after they had arrived in the United States and gotten off a ship and disappeared into the wider community. That would not have been a very practical idea, and nobody contemplated it.
The ship owner, in cases where somebody arrived by sea, might be compelled to return someone to his last place of residence, (or fined) and that was it. The fine or tax was actually supposed to be for the purpose of taking care of any indigents.
Blue Moon Alert!
Agreeing with Rags lol
Knowingly passing an unconstitutional law (such as McCain-Feingold) violates a congressman’s oath of office. Signing it is violates a president’s oath.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!
My agreement with the content of your comment being immaterial, thank you for correctly writing “take the reins” (and not “take the reigns” as it seems 99.9% of Americans do).
Sorry. Pet peeve.
Carry on!
In taking the reins one takes reign.
Of course it is, especially for Cubans.
President Marco Rubio is going to be in a tough position, should the Castro regime fall while he is office.
By the way, setting up contests like that could be a way to stop people from risking their lives. They shold set one up near the Channell Tunnel in France.
New York Times editorial about Trump:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/opinion/gop-candidates-follow-trump-to-the-bottom-on-immigration.html?_r=0
New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-trumpistan-article-1.2328599
Further on:
More from the New York Daily News (you’ll could see the editorial with
This is Trumpistan
very visible, flashing by in television ads and in printed in direct mail pieces, and utilized ion other manner too
That’s right shrink the federal deficit, although Senator Sessions will probably disagree, arguing maybe the per capita income in the United States will go down.
I’ve got no problem with that…
Wall Street Journal:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deportation-party-439853705
The Journal doesn’t quite get it right as why that is not true. It is wrong at the level of basic theory.
The Wall street Journal editorial is also wrong about immigration laws alienating the Irish. I don’t think they ever had them. And also, the Irish were about the only group (besides Mexicans and others from independent states in the western hemisphere) not affected by immigration quotas in the 1920s because the quota for Ireland was so high. They turned against the Republican Party because of Prohibition, and because of accusations taht the Republican Party was flirting with the anti-Catholc Ku Klux Klan in 1924, and because they had been recruioted as Democrats before already by urban political machines.
The Republican Party eventually lost its most solid supporters, Negroes, because of its non-existant economic policies during the Great Depression, and because Herbert Hoover had tried to create a white Republican Party in the south.
Those votes were really lost between 1932 and 1936.
Hey Sammy! If you want to be a newsfeeder, get your own website. Stop trolling here.
LOL! I was just thinking the same thing 🙂
Coulter’s article on the 14th amendment is dishonest. The purpose of the amendment is irrelevant; all that matters is its language, and the language is not capable of more than one interpretation. A child born in the USA, and who is subject to its laws, is a citizen, regardless of who his parents are, or what their legal status. End of story.
John Elk was not subject to US jurisdiction; as an Indian not taxed he was exempt from US law and did not have to answer summonses to US courts. That’s why he was not a citizen.
Of course the purpose is relevant, but the language is also clear.
“A child born in the USA, and who is subject to its laws, is a citizen, regardless of who his parents are, or what their legal status. End of story.
John Elk was not subject to US jurisdiction” Milhouse said.
You flip between common law and “subject to jurisdiction” from sentence to sentence. How does an eight pound baby demonstrate subjection to the jurisdiction? He belongs to his parents, so holds their allegiance. Not to the king (which is common law standard).
Below is the most concisely articulate paper I’ve found on clarifying, that “jus soli” was not the law at the time and only the very wrong Wong Kim Ark decision has established precedent over the actual law, for LEGAL immigrants. And that only because they depended on common law which was clearly rejected in our republic. Then as Coulter points out, Brennan’s footnote in REagan days said legal and illegal are the same.
quod erat demonstrandum
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
This analysis treats jurisdiction, like it meant exclusive jurisdiction and that would carry alot of consequences, which you don’t follow. All this is purely an appeal to ignorance.
Yesterday, the contractor who was installing heater wire for my roof gutters and downspouts, to combat the ice damming that damaged my living room ceiling last winter, you know, a consequence of man-made global warming, pointed to my laptop, whose Internet browser was set to the home page of National Review, and said “I like that guy”. That guy, of course, was the Donald, who is the target of multiple attacks each day by the milquetoast editors and writers of NRO. Would I prefer my contractor to be sending contributions to Ted Cruz? Yes. Am I happy that he is NOT saying “I like that guy/gal” meaning Hillary or Fauxohantas or Sanders or O’Malley or Biden? Hell, yes. This frothing at the mouth by alleged conservatives over the Donald is insanity.
Still fairly early yet. Lets wait until 10 or so candidates have dropped out to see how Trump fares.
<blockquote. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” How are they the same thing??
The legislation says “subject” and the quotation from Thomas Jefferson involves “subjects
It’s a different word, and a different concept.
Subject as a verb means that foreign law applies to them. It cannot be pluralized.
Subject as a noun means the other country considers that person to its laws which do not apply to foreigners apply to them. That can take an s, when more than one person is being talked about.
Any person present in the United States, where U.S. law is operating, is NOT subject to a foreign power (well, primaril;y, because China tries to exert its rule over citizens of China who have fled to the United States and the Obama Administration is complaining about that, but quietly, as is its usual way. Many ahve somehow been forced, or tricked, or threatened, into returning. And China may even consider full fleged U.S. citizens to be Chinese.)
Anyway, “subject” has to do with whose law applies to them. Subjects has to do with citizenship. Of course you will say Wong Kim Ark was therefore wrongly decided, but then what you are saying is that people born in the United States are not citizens unless their parents were citizens or they were natiuralized by act of Congress, and maybe even if they were dual citizens.
I stumbled across a copy of July 2008 issue of Imprimus (Volume 37, Number 7) where there is an article about Birthright Citizenship by Edward J. Erler where pretty much the same arguments are used.
You can see two pobvious errors or mistatements.
Despite saying right after the “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes Indians (not taxed) he argues that if it meant anyone born within the geographical limits of the United States, “subject ot the jurisdiction” would be superflous. Not so.
Then, in quoting Senator James Howard of Ohio, he adds an [or] in brackets.
Outside of any quotes he equates jurisdiction with allegiance.
You know, in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (where someone sued arguing taht the establishment clause of the First amendment prevented tax exemptions from being granted to religious organziations) Chief Justice Burger quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner 256 U.S. 345 (1921) that
“a page of history is worth a volume of logic.”
Nobody has ever understood the citizenship clause that way.
One more article:
Here the New York Times gives pointers to Jeb Bush on how to argue with Donald Trump:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/jeb-bush-visita-la-frontera.html?_r=0
They changed the headline for the online edition to Jeb Bush Falls Into a Trap