Posted on 02/01/2017 7:26:43 AM PST by blackbetty59
Yes, I believe that is exactly the case. Non-US citizens receiving billions in taxpayer funded benefits / entitlements.
To wit, at least 50% of all students in LA Unified Schools are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Not anchor babies, but illegal aliens. In addition to the free public funded education they are receiving, they also receive free breakfasts, free lunches, subsidized housing, WIC, EBT cards and healthcare. I don’t know how illegal aliens get any of these things, but they do. I live here and see it every day everywhere I go.
There needs to be a case to go before the Supreme Court to establish a strong, clear ruling. I agree with you. There is no nation in the world that declares citizenship for the children of non-citizens. It is just crazy.
More than 60% of the welfare collectors in Calif are illegal, and the state politicians know it.
There is a very serious problem with names being swapped, also.
Gomez-Rodriguez becomes Rodriguez-Gomez at the drop of a hat. They also know how to ‘forget’ that they can speak English just as quickly.
Extend green cards from five to never to collect social services.
Nothing to families with illegals as parents.
Obama gave AMERICAN citizens .3% increase in soc sec for 2017. Mine amounted to $4 a month-—and then my basic telephone bill went up $6 a month.
Obama gave all Federal employees a 2.1% raise-—7 (SEVEN) times what soc sec recipients got.
Maybe when the illegals are out of the USA & OFF the rolls of TAKERS, we can get a nicer soc sec raise. IF the
Fed employees needed 2.1% because of cost of living —— seems the only discount I have towards MY COL is the monthly soc sec deposit.
And the Federal employee’s checks are a lot bigger than the average social security check. Plus it will increase their pensions.
Can you imagine any other president pushing back like this?
Establishment Republican:
1. Makes a bold move (rare, but it does occasionally happen)
2. The left goes berserk and calls him every name in the book.
3. The momentarily “bold Republican” immediately backs down and says sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry...
Trump:
1. Makes a bold move (at least once a day)
2. The left goes berserk and calls him every name in the book.
3. Trump enhances the move and makes it even bolder.
What a freaking difference!
The Constitution is very clear on citizenship of anchor babies. You would have to out-do RoeVWade in finding a penumbra that contradicts the 14th.
As Constitionalists we cant pick and choose which parts to support and which parts to ignore or even worse, contradict. If we become like our opponents then why are they our opponents?
Yes, it is clear. However the 14th amendment was clearly meant to protect the freed slaves. The Republicans were afraid the Southern Democrats would deprive that class of people and exclude them from citizenship and not able to vote. The framers would roll over in their graves if they knew the 14th was being used as it is today, IMO.
It would be worth it to see Archbishop Gomez have a hemorrhage.
When the 14th was passed there were massive waves of immigrants. Immigration was very much an issue.
The authors of the 14th were very much aware that we had open borders. There was no such thing as an Illegal immigrant (until the 1920s). The authors were very much aware that kids born in the US to immigrants were citizens.
In my 1950s school my teachers glorified this nation of immigrants where the kid of an immigrant could be president.
The cultural pride in the vertical mobility of people in the US is something we should be proud of is what we were taught. That cultural pride goes waaay baaack..
I haven’t studied the Constitution for many years but what I wrote in my post I know is correct. Yes, there were many immigrants entering, but they were coming from Europe through established ports of entry and were the backbone of the industrial revolution, and were legally entered. And yes, they studied and became citizens, and were proud of their citizenship. And yes, they had children born citizens. But the 14th was to protect the former slaves. I guess I’ll have to do a search to refresh my memory as to the details and specifics. You might do the same.
The purpose of the 14th is to create and define the equal protection clause.
One part of that definition is to define who is covered by the equal protection clause. The authors chose to limit the equal protection clause to citizens. For that reason they chose to make clear that ANYONE and EVERYONE born in the US is a citizen of the US and thus has full protecton of the equal protection clause.
Non-citizens are not covered by the equal protection clause.
Naturalized citizens are covered by the equal protection clause. But Naturalized citizens have always entered into a contract with the US Government in which they contract to perform certain duties and to not perform other acts ... illegal, immoral, treasonous/traitorous acts.
I maintain that those naturalization contracts should, and do, supercede the 14th Amendment. Some leftist lawyers argue that the 14th supercedes contracts... that a person cant sign away his coverage under the 14th.
Some leftist lawyers see penumbra in the 14th that say it NOW covers non-citizens, despite its clear wording to the contrary.
Any attempt by the right to find penumbra in the 14th that would justify redefining anchor babies is a trojan horse the left uses to say:
. . . .See we all agree the authors of the Constitution did not forsee modern situations and therefore we can re-interpret the Constitution to suit our current situation if we can just find a judge who agrees with our agenda.
Bureaucrats do what they want. They don’t follow the law. They’ll give welfare to whom they want because they know they run the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.