Anchor Babies

Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: “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.”

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it’s amazing the drafters even considered the amendment’s effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

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.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan’s footnote with America’s ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

“Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa … gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa’s 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. … The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies.”

In the Silverios’ munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It’s bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of “anchor babies,” America is being governed by Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

endofstory

The above graciously lifted from Ann Coulter. Because I bet you didn’t know.

 

Obama, Making Dictators Proud

Time was when America’s leaders stood up for it, and the Constitution. No more. Now, thanks to errant and complicit Republicans, behaving like a dictator becomes an “accomplishment.”

A congressional vote of disapproval would not prevent Obama from acting on his own to start putting the accord in place. While he probably would take some heavy criticism, this course would let him add the foreign policy breakthrough to his second-term list of accomplishments.

Link: Obama can do Iran nuclear deal even if Congress disapproves

Dems, All For The Wrong Reason

Remember Marco Rubio’s one-liner at the first Republican “debate?”

God has blessed us. He’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.

At a time when most Americans believe they are seeing the country in decline, in so many ways, and the only candidates to replace Obama who are resonating with Americans are the ones from outside the political class, the DNC and RNC have a daunting challenge.

The RNC finds itself, once again, spending resources fighting their own candidates, preferring the traditional political class, Jeb Bush. Ted Cruz calls them part of the Washington Cartel. The republican field has ample candidates, not part of the Washington Cartel, who want to turn this ship around and they are vocal about it.

What do Democrats have? Hillary Clinton, part of the Washington Cartel who would be Obama’s third term. More of what most Americans don’t like. And that’s only if she isn’t wearing an orange jump suit in prison for violating the espionage act. Then there’s Al Gore. Al, don’t you want to run again? Or Joe Biden. Joe don’t you want to run? You son wanted you to run.

What’s missing here? Their desire to run. It’s not in their gut to run, to ‘turn this ship around’ or to run on an Obama third term. The DNC doesn’t have a true, organic candidate with a mission. (Credit President Obama for that. He is the only imperial ruler in his party.) The only person attracting democrats is not a democrat. It’s Independent Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist.

It’s too early to tell how this will sort out by 2016, but a republican landslide isn’t out of the question. It’s the RNC’s election to lose.

Obama’s Negotiating Partner, Iran

When I hear the phony ‘war on women’ meme from those who use it to tar a certain political party, I just have to laugh at their righteous indignation.

You should see what a real war on women looks like. Brought to you by the Islamic goons currently running Iran. With the blessing of the nuclear proliferation co-conspirators, President Obama and Sec. of State John Kerry. (Bet you didn’t know that the Iranian negotiator, Kerry’s Iranian counterpart, is the father of the best man in Kerry’s daughter’s wedding.)

Here’s an account, by someone who used to live there, of what is going on in Iran, and the type of people Obama is dealing with. This was posted on the ‘American Policy on the Middle East and Iran’ FB group.

endofstory

By Farid A. Khavari

Under the former Shah’s regime, women had equal rights with men. Under the Shia-Mullah regime women’s rights have been eliminated completely, although they get some special treatment under the laws.

Boys of 15 years and girls of 9 are legally adults and subject to execution for crimes.

Out of over 120,000 political executions (mostly young people) since 1979, about one third were females. Since it is illegal to execute a female virgin, she must be deflowered before being hanged or stoned.

The Shia Mullahs legalize the rape of the woman to assure compliance with their version of holy law. These practices do not exist among the Sunnis.

What Is It About Trump?

Why is it, that despite all the mud thrown at him by a media hell-bent on discrediting him, even if they have to make stuff up, he continues to rise in the polls?

It’s not just that he strikes a nerve on what most Americans feel is important, because there are other candidates who are saying similar things. What’s different is that Donald Trump doesn’t do PC , doesn’t  bow to critics, and is always on offense. That ‘always on offense’ is what’s different. And, what people tired of seeing this country go down the drain are longing for.

It’s what Democrats have perfected. They never lose, even when they lose. They persist. They persist to the point of electing a community organizer as president. Twice! And the other side, being habitually polite, make a science out of caving and face-saving. Which brings us to the point where the Republican leadership, despite what they were elected to do, is going along with Obama’s agenda when every opportunity to stop it comes up.

Trump turns that whole dynamic on its head. And the folks are cheering.

Did Murdoch Cave To Obama?

It is unfortunate that the big “news” coming out of the first Republican “debate” was about conjured up and misleading accusations about Donald Trump, instead of what people tuned in to find out. Which was, who, and how, will one of these candidates reverse America’s decline?

In trying to excuse the ineptness of his policies, President Obama goes to the bogeyman, FOX News and talk radio. The latter of which means Rush Limbaugh. Blaming them for turning his successes into failures. In other words, they’re not buying his spin on how great things are. They’re more fact-based, and for the most part, the national voice that is (or was) fact-based when criticizing the president’s performance.

After last Thursday’s dump-on-Trump show, you have to wonder if Rupert Murdoch is feeling a little intimidated by The One? That would explain some of what we saw on the debate stage.

Megyn Kelly is a lawyer. She knows that asking a question with or without context will shape an image in one way or another. So when she recounts what Trump said about Rosie O’Donnell and attributing his comment to the phony ‘war on women,’ without noting that it was Rosie’s personal attack that Trump responded to, it casts a misogynistic pale over the candidate.

Piling on, Megyn Kelly adds to the Democrat ‘war on women’ meme with a comment about a woman “on her knees.” I doubt that there was anyone who took that question in any way other than a Bill Clinton meeting in the Oval Office. Except for two. Brande Roderick, who the comment was attributed to, and Donald Trump.

With that one, I have to wonder if the FOX producers didn’t get that “knees” quote from the slobs at Media Matters. They’re good at twisting up into down and right into left. Which was just the sort of distortion that Megyn’s question accomplished. Can you say Candy Crowley?

Instead of getting on the ‘Trump should apologize’ bandwagon, it is FOX News and Megyn Kelly who should apologize. And not to Trump, he’s a big boy and can take it. But to the American people who watched that debate with the expectation of finding out how the candidates would govern differently than what we’ve seen these last six years. They were not tough questions. They were misleading questions that made the debate more of a reality TV show, instead of an investigation of what the candidates have to offer.

Sanders Event Shut Down By Black Lives Matter Protesters

How’s this post-racial America working out for you? The seeds of racial divide that President Obama planted are bearing fruit. Or rather, weeds.

Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was given something in Seattle that he did not expect. Disrespect, from a rowdy ‘Black Lives Matter’ crowd that would not let him speak.

Watch as this screaming bitch gets in his face at the podium.

https://youtu.be/2mZ3tIII5zg

Some people just don’t know their place. You to decide if it is Bernie Sanders, or the protesters.

This would be another teachable moment for President Obama to step up and call for civility. He hasn’t taken advantage of all his other opportunities. If he wants this chaos to stop, he would.

Link: BERNIE SANDERS FORCED OFF SEATTLE STAGE BY BLACK LIVES MATTER

It’s A Three-Party Race

How can Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) run as a Democrat when he isn’t a Democrat?  He’s an Independent.

I like the notion of a three-way race, 1 Democrat, 1 Independent, and 1 Republican. In the same way Bill Clinton liked running against Perot and Bush in ’92.

After the debates last night, it won’t be Trump going third-party. Here is why. From the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal, Trump said he didn’t want to give up leverage. That’s understandable given his background. It’s not understandable in the electoral political sense. That leverage, if used, guarantees a Democrat win. And if Trump believes his theme to make America great again, then he won’t go third-party.

Good negotiators don’t give up leverage. For example, when the Commander-in-Chief tells our enemies what we won’t do, he is giving up leverage. But he does it because he doesn’t want America to be great again.

DNC Chair Speechless On The Big Question

I don’t know where this came from, considering the source, but Chris Matthews interviewed DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz on his MSNBC show, Hardball. He finally threw one.

Speaking of the primaries and the DNC convention, Matthews asked Shultz if Bernie Sanders should speak for democrats, or if he speaks for democrats. After getting an affirmative response, he asks “What’s the difference between a democrat and a socialist?”

Her lack of response underscores what many Americans (and now Chris Matthews) already know. That there is no difference any more.

Belly up to the counter. Politics are on the menu and Ross is on the grill.