Search This Blog

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Is birthright citizenship merely a game of kick the can?

Megan Kelly grills Ted Cruz on birthright citizenship:



Did you ever play kick the can? The game works like this ... whoever is "it" closes his eyes and counts to a predetermined number. Meanwhile everybody hides. After Mr. "It" reaches the predetermined number he's going to hunt down all the people playing the game. There's a can on the ground that represents safety for those who aren't "it." If they can avoid "Mr. It" and successfully kick the can they are safe. They win. They won't end up being "Mr. It."

How sad is it that a vagina with a baby behind it is the modern day equivalent of a tin can? All an illegal immigrant needs to do is evade "Mr. It" long enough to 'kick the can' and they're safe ... forever! Megyn Kelly "a real womyn, by the way" wants to know would Ted Cruz deport American citizens. Yes it is a mainstream media question. Yes it is the first thing Chris Matthews would ask. Yes it is completely unequivocally and completely irrelevant, and yes it's an unfair question. So why would Megyn Kelly ask it? Is she secretly a female Chris Matthews, or is she merely preparing the candidates for what they'll face as they go forward? Maybe she thinks of herself as a sparring partner. She's not trying to knock anybody out, merely teaching them to keep their guard up. Okay, perhaps. But now it's time to look at the question. It doesn't look like anybody has. Point number one: Is birthright citizenship valid? Point number two: If birthright citizenship is valid, what do we do with the parents?

Unfortunately with the recent Supreme Court, if the decision went to them, "Kick the Can" would be the decision. This despite—for instance—the indisputable fact that children of foreign ambassadors have never been considered as Americans—they're not considered "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF," the clause that every single mainstream media journalist, reporter, or pundit has forgotten, ignored, or never bothered to read.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" So a can is kicked, a baby is born. Now they can apply for welfare and an EBT card? Let's not discuss or even entertain the possibility that birthright citizenship was never what the creators of the 14th amendment ever desired...okay obviously we are forced to discuss exactly that!
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
I realize that the vast majority of the American electorate mistakenly believe in "birthright citizenship. If they merely contained theirselves with the belief that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are watching our every move, the world would be a vastly better place to live. Alas, sadly that is not the case. Nevertheless, even if you believe in the Tooth-Fairy, Santa-Clause, and birthright citizenship, there still remains a commonsense answer to Megyn Kelly's question. If a baby born on this side of the border is automatically granted citizenship—AKA it kicked the can—then it is an American citizen. What if the police find an abandoned baby in a basket by the side of the road ... what do they do? It's common sense it's also called an orphanage. Alternatively it's called foster-care and it's also called adoption. If the illegal immigrant parents want to, they can certainly give their new child up for adoption, otherwise they can take themselves and their can-kicking infant back to wherever they came from. Please keep in mind that the can-kicking infant has an American birth-certificate. This would certainly be grounds later to prove United States citizenship whenever he/she desires to return—sans non-citizen parents of course. How Many People are Seeking to Adopt?
According to the data from the National Surveys of Family Growth from 1973, 1982, 1988, and 1995, that there were 9.9 million women who had ever considered adoption, 16% had taken steps towards adoption, and 31% of these had actually adopted a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999)

The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child. (Freundlich, 1998)
Of the 500,000 women seeking to adopt, only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997)
The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 232,000 women were currently taken concrete steps towards adoptions, compared to 204,000 in 1988. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999)
According to the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth there are an estimated 3.3 adoption seekers for every actual adoption.
According to the 1988 National Survey on Family Growth, about 2 million women ages 15 to 44 (3.5%) had ever sought to adopt a child.
Of these, 1.3 million did not adopt and are no longer seeking.
620,000 have adopted one or more children.
204,000 are currently seeking to adopt.
(Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

No comments:

Post a Comment