Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[JimBowie1958]

"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.)"
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Trump is getting people to wake up and actually read Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment....luvin it!


Maybe someone could tweat some of this to Bill O'Reilly before he dives further into lala land and looks like a fool?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mexican ambassador states that there are more than 30 million illegals alreadyin the country, far more than the Political Class estimate/lie of 11 million.

"The former ambassador stated,” If you were to deport the 30 million undocumented immigrants in the United States that’s going to cost you about 130 billion dollars.” Contrary to the former ambassador’s initial numbers and to Rubio, MSNBC showed an image while Sarukhan spoke claiming 11 million illegal aliens were in the country. Sarukhan then stated later in the interview that there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the country, though he did not address his former assertion that 30 million are here. Many conservative and border watchdog groups have long contended that the actual number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is closer to 30 million while the U.S. government contends the number is closer to 11 million.

30 Million Illegal Immigrants in US, Says Mexico's Former Ambassador

 

[JakeStarkey]

The courts will strike down any congressional or presidential action. Move along.

 

[Idadunno]

The 14th and 15th amendments weren't legally ratified anyway.
The south was ruled by "provisional" governments that were put in place by the fed gvmt. for the purpose of continuing to "punish" the south for the "crime" of wanting to withdraw peacefully from the union.

The 14th Amendment WAS NEVER RATIFIED back in 1868! Due to the blatantly unconstitutional machinations of the 40th Congress, the 14th Amendment did not legitimately meet with the required Constitutional ratification process, and it was NEVER SIGNED by President Andrew Johnson.


Here is a look at the short text of the 14th Amendment:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

Here is a treatise of the FRAUD perpetrated by the 40th Congress back in 1868, which in 1967 was inserted into the Congressional Record of the 90th Congress at the request of former Congressman John Rarick (Dem-LA) (still alive). The treatise was written by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana.

http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/rarick.pdf

Here is more of what Judge Leander Perez has to say:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

By Joseph E. Fallon


“The justification for the vast, intrusive, and coercive powers employed by the government of the United States against its citizens—from affirmative action to hate-crimes legislation, from multilingualism to multiculturalism, from Waco to Ruby Ridge—is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution adopted in 1868, or, more specifically, the authority conferred upon Washington, explicitly or implicitly, by the “privileges and immunities” and “equal protection” clauses of that amendment.”

“Like the emperor’s new clothes, however, the 14th Amendment does not exist. It was never constitutionally ratified, and, thus, acts of the government of the United States that are based on the 14th Amendment are actually illegitimate.”

“Despite its subsequent “interpretation” by the federal judiciary to mandate federal intervention in state and local affairs, the original aim of the 14th Amendment was to ensure the political and economic hegemony of the Northern states over the South. This was why Lincoln and Northern business interests waged total war against the South for four years: to transform the United States from a constitutional republic into a continental empire.”

“Section Two of the 14th Amendment permitted the disenfranchisement of Southern white men “for participation in the rebellion.” Since the word “participation” could mean anything from serving in the Confederate Army, to using the Confederate postal service, to paying taxes to the Confederate government, or even failing to rebel against the Confederate authorities, it could be used by the North to deny the right to vote to virtually the entire adult, white-male population of the South.”

“Section Three sought to expel the South from every level and branch of government by denying Southern white men “who having taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States . . . engaged in insurrection or rebellion [against the United States] . . . or [had] given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” (essentially the entire leadership of the South) the right to hold political or appointive offices, either civilian or military, in state or federal governments. Again, the North could define “engaged” and “given aid or comfort” to bar anyone and everyone.”

“Section Four protected Northern politicians, military leaders, and businessmen who perpetrated financial fraud in the course of the war from future prosecution and ensured that the North would never have to pay reparations for the theft and destruction it committed against the South.”

“The 14th Amendment made a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. Sections Two and Three blatantly violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by denying nine million Southerners their political and civil rights on what President Andrew Johnson declared was “an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence.” In addition, Section Three was an ex post facto law specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. And Section Four violated both the Due Process and the Just Compensation Clauses of the Fifth Amendment.”

“Not surprisingly, when the 14th Amendment was introduced in Congress on June 13, 1866, as House Joint Resolution 127, it was opposed by members from the Southern states. Since Article V of the U.S. Constitution stipulated that an amendment proposed by Congress had to be approved by two-thirds majorities in both Houses, Southern votes ensured the proposed amendment would be defeated.”

“To prevent that, the Radical Republicans who controlled Congress unilaterally changed the composition of Congress in order to procure the needed majorities. In violation of the Constitution’s Article I, Sections 2, 3, and 5, and in particular Article V (“that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”), they unlawfully excluded the 61 representatives and 22 senators from the Southern states. Moreover, they counted the votes of West Virginia and Nevada—both unconstitutional entities created by Lincoln as part of his war measures.”

“Even after taking these steps, however, the proposed amendment still faced defeat in the Senate by one vote if the vote of Sen. John P. Stockton of New Jersey, an outspoken critic of the 14th Amendment, was counted. So the Radical Republicans unlawfully expelled him from the Senate as well.”

“The votes in both the House and Senate approving the proposed 14th Amendment were, therefore, fraudulent. Since President Andrew Johnson opposed the amendment, the initial fraud was compounded by the subsequent refusal of Congress to present the 14th Amendment to the President for his approval as mandated by Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”

“Once Congress has approved an amendment, Article V stipulates that ratification by three fourths of the states is required for adoption. On June 16, 1866, Congress submitted the unlawfully proposed 14th Amendment to the legislatures of all 36 states, including the Southern states excluded from Congress, for ratification. With the admission of Nebraska into the Union on March 1, 1867, as the 37th state, the number of states needed for ratification was 28.”

“By March 1, 1867, 12 States had rejected the 14th Amendment. This left only 25 states, three fewer than the U.S. Constitution required for adoption. Later, Maryland and California both voted to reject the amendment, while three states that had ratified it—New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon—rescinded their respective ratifications, citing voter fraud. While Congress rejected these rescissions, the damage had been done. The 14th Amendment had been constitutionally defeated.”

“The Radical Republicans reacted by enacting three laws between March 2 and July 19, 1867, known as the Reconstruction Acts. These laws reflected the attitude of Northern “constitutionalists” like Sen. James Doolittle of Wisconsin, who declared that, since “the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment,” the North should “march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet”; “until they do adopt it,” the North should rule the South by military force.”

“With the Reconstruction Acts, Congress declared “no legal state governments” existed in ten Southern states, even though Congress had officially recognized these state governments as legitimate since 1865. The adoption of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery depended upon ratification by seven of these states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—for the required three-fourths majority. Branding them “rebel” states, Congress proceeded to abolish their governments. The South was divided into five military districts and, in blatant violation of both Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Milligan three months earlier, was placed under martial law. This action, motivated by malice for the South and contempt for the U.S. Constitution, has bequeathed to the United States an interesting and ironic legacy.”

“If the South had “no legal state governments” after 1861 (as Congress maintained in 1867 following the defeat of the 14th Amendment), then the 13th Amendment was never constitutionally ratified in 1865. Slavery, therefore, is still a lawful institution in the United States. On the other hand, if the South had legal governments (as Congress affirmed in 1865 when the South ratified the 13th Amendment), then the 14th Amendment was constitutionally defeated in 1867. Therefore, all subsequent legislative and executive acts and judicial decisions based upon the 14th Amendment are null and void.”

“Without the 14th Amendment, the federal government is deprived of a principal source of its power. Most, if not all, of the laws, regulations, and rulings pertaining to affirmative action, desegregation, “hate crimes,” multilingualism, multiculturalism, U.S. citizenship, voting, reapportionment, religion, education, housing, welfare, states’ rights, and territorial powers are based almost exclusively on the 14th Amendment. Even the immigration policy pursued since 1965 is justified, to a significant extent, by the 14th Amendment.”

“Through violence, intimidation, coercion, and fraud, through martial law, through congressional threats to confiscate and redistribute all the property of Southern whites, through removal of Southern governors and judges, and through congressional repeal of state laws requiring a majority of registered voters for the adoption of a new state constitution, Congress successfully created “provisional governments.” By 1868, these provisional governments had duly ratified the 14th Amendment (Congress having made ratification a requirement for readmission into the Union). However, under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, only states in the Union can ratify an amendment. Since Congress declared that these provisional governments were not states in the Union and, thus, had denied them representation in Congress, the provisional governments could not ratify this amendment. Therefore, the 14th Amendment remains unratified.”

“Led by the states of Mississippi and Georgia, Southern whites attempted to have the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts—and, by implication, the ratification of the 14th Amendment—reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed and, in 1868, heard legal arguments in Ex parte McCardle. When the justices indicated that they were favorably disposed toward the South’s constitutional argument, the Radical Republicans in Congress enacted legislation removing this subject from the Court’s jurisdiction. This was the only constitutional act undertaken by the Radical Republicans in their relentless attempt to impose the 14th Amendment. According to Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is limited by “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

“After 1868, the federal government has not permitted any serious legal challenge to the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. To do so would risk dismantling the entire apparatus of the federal government in a single stroke, depriving federal officeholders—Democrats and Republicans, judges, politicians, and bureaucrats—of the powers and perks they enjoy and expect.”

“The government of the United States, as established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789, was effectively abolished by the 14th Amendment. In its place was substituted a regime that resembles the absolutist centralized state envisioned by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. It is the type of political system Patrick Henry and other Founding Fathers had warned against—a consolidated government ruled by demagogues for the benefit of special interests.”

“It was natural for the post-14th Amendment government of the United States to expand from a continental empire, in which the states of the Union had been effectively reduced to mere administrative units of the federal government, to one whose reach would be, in the words of neoconservative ideologues William Kristol and Robert Kagan, nothing less than “benevolent global hegemony.” And it was a relatively simple matter, then, for the government of the United States to go from inflicting death and destruction at Waco to inflecting death and destruction on Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. Washington emulates Imperial Rome, of whom it was said, “They create a desert and call it peace.”

The south attacked the Union first, how peaceful was that? The US will be so much better once you rebels evolve out.

 

[MathewSmith]

A woman comes into the country illegally, has a baby, and wants to stay in the country to be with her child. I would give her two choices: leave the country with your child, or leave the country without your child.

 

[tigerred59]

On this, I can completely agree with Mr. Trump and its about time somebody, anybody deal with this immigration shit. I'm not gonna vote for the guy, but damit all the candidates had better get off their ass's and start dealing with illegal immigration in this country, because everybody is getting tired of it. Go to any emergency room in this country and all you'll see is Maria with a fat fuckin belly ready to give birth to her pass into this country. That law maybe meant something around the turn of the last century, but today, its an excuse for illegals to stay her in this country with tax payers footing the fuckin bill.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The courts will strike down any congressional or presidential action. Move along.

Oh, so now you are a Supreme court justice as well as a delegate to the states constitutional amendment Article V convention?

Starkey you are so full of shit, I am now sure you don't even realize it any more.

 

[JimBowie1958]

On this, I can completely agree with Mr. Trump and its about time somebody, anybody deal with this immigration shit. I'm not gonna vote for the guy, but damit all the candidates had better get off their ass's and start dealing with illegal immigration in this country, because everybody is getting tired of it. Go to any emergency room in this country and all you'll see is Maria with a fat fuckin belly ready to give birth to her pass into this country. That law maybe meant something around the turn of the last century, but today, its an excuse for illegals to stay her in this country with tax payers footing the fuckin bill.

Well the Republican establishment wants to give them all amnesty, all 11 to 30 million of them, but they disguise it under a lot of wonk word salad camouflage.

Would you believe that Harry Reid, Boehner and McConnell at one time supported a law that would end anchor babies also? But after some time in Washington DC inside the Beltway, they have gradually changed their minds (Reid) or are just silent about it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A woman comes into the country illegally, has a baby, and wants to stay in the country to be with her child. I would give her two choices: leave the country with your child, or leave the country without your child.

That is how it is in almost every other country on the planet. It is only Western nations that are told we have an obligation to take in everyone that can get here and pop out a kid by international libtards. But in the rest of the world, they just ignore the libtards for being jack asses.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As already correctly noted, Trump is is wrong, as are those who support him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As already correctly noted, Trump is is wrong, as are those who support him.

Wow, because you say so?

I am not impressed, troll.

 

[DGS49]

Ann Coulter - Fox News Anchored in Stupidity on 14th Amendment

Coulter pretty much nails the issue. The thought that "we can't deport thirty million people" is specious, irrelevant, and dangerous.

Police cannot stop all of the 100 million people who exceed the speed limit every day, but they catch the ones they can and that's a warning to the others. If we take away all benefits of being here (employment, school, welfare, subsidized housing, free medical care), they will "self-deport," and it won't cost the U.S. taxpayer anything. Indeed we will save hundreds of billions.

The anchor baby thing would be easy to resolve through legislation (no Constitutional amendment required), if the Political Class were of a mind to do it, but clearly they are not. Enter The Donald.

As for the "Dreamers," sending them back to their own country is not "punishment." Nor is it unfair. It is merely putting them in the same position they would be in if their parents hadn't BROKEN U.S. LAW!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fascists always seek people to scapegoat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Fascists always seek people to scapegoat.

Yeah, so I wish you libtard fascists would stop calling everyone a racist. The word is being way oversold and hardly has any sting to it any more thanks to idiots like you.

Now run along, dear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is doable and constitutional in the opinion of many. The specific point that Wong requires parents to have legal domicile clinches it.

How the Fourteenth Amendment Empowers Congress to End Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

"If an illegal alien has a child on American soil, the Constitution does not require the child be granted American citizenship. Congress can give citizenship to anyone it wants, but the Fourteenth Amendment only commands citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens of a foreign country.

Part of the chaos on America’s southern border is driven by illegal aliens seeking to have “anchor babies.” Under the current Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), if an illegal alien has a baby on U.S. soil, that baby is an American citizen.

Since all citizens have a right to be here, the illegal adult then cites the need to keep families together as justifying the parents’ staying in the U.S. for the rest of their lives, and “family reunification” is cited as grounds for bringing the rest of the family to the United States. ...

While many erroneously claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, the reality is that is not the law and has never been the law. Current immigration law–found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)–specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

But if the view promoted by the Left that citizenship is automatic (and parroted by many in the middle and even on the Right who have not seriously studied the issue) is correct, then those three exceptions would be unconstitutional. The debate over birthright citizenship turns on what the Citizenship Clause means by the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”....

If a constitutional conservative Republican wins the White House, and Republicans control both the House and Senate, then as part of finally dealing with immigration Congress could enact this change.

First must be a statute that effectively secures the border. A second statute should address citizenship. Then a third could be a statute creating a broad and generous guest-worker program.

Each bill would save the United States billions of dollars per year. Consequently, each could be passed in the Senate through what is called “reconciliation,” and therefore could not be filibustered and instead passed with 51 votes. With 218 House members, 50 senators (plus the vice president), and a willing president, all this could become law in 2017. "

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mexico’s former ambassador to the U.S. said that 30 million “undocumented immigrants” are living in the United States in the beginning of an interview before later stating a different number at the conclusion.
30 Million Illegal Immigrants in US, Says Mexico's Former Ambassador

 

[Camp]

Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The courts will strike down any congressional or presidential action. Move along.

Oh, so now you are a Supreme court justice as well as a delegate to the states constitutional amendment Article V convention?

Starkey you are so full of shit, I am now sure you don't even realize it any more.

JB, that is you in the mirror to whom you are talking.

You are delusional about de-enfranchising citizens.

Congress and President have no power to do so.

But you clearly are a right wing reactionary progressive statist in that you want Big Government to make it so

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fascists always seek people to scapegoat.

Yeah, so I wish you libtard fascists would stop calling everyone a racist. The word is being way oversold and hardly has any sting to it any more thanks to idiots like you.

Now run along, dear.

No one calls "everyone a racist"; the truth being racists abound in the United States. Like porn, I know it when I hear it, and though ti is sometimes subtle and covert, it still rings a sour note.

To deny fascism uses scapegoats to secure their power is foolish, and to deny the current iteration of conservatism doesn't single out any party, race or religion for unmerited negative treatment or blame is belied by your use of "libtard".

 

[JimBowie1958]

Fascists always seek people to scapegoat.

Yeah, so I wish you libtard fascists would stop calling everyone a racist. The word is being way oversold and hardly has any sting to it any more thanks to idiots like you.

Now run along, dear.

No one calls "everyone a racist"; the truth being racists abound in the United States. Like porn, I know it when I hear it, and though ti is sometimes subtle and covert, it still rings a sour note.

To deny fascism uses scapegoats to secure their power is foolish, and to deny the current iteration of conservatism doesn't single out any party, race or religion for unmerited negative treatment or blame is belied by your use of "libtard".

And to deny that libtards like you are bankrupting oral baggage wrapped in the word 'racism' is also foolish.

And libtards have never liked law enforcement and that is because the left has been joined at the hip with organize since Tammany Hall. So, tough shit, the border will be secured and the clarification brought to the 14th amendment that we need to control immigration no matter how much you poor dears cry about it.

Piss off.