Posted on 08/20/2015 3:11:29 PM PDT by Biggirl
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
bfl
Brennan was also the driving force behind Roe v. Wade, although he deliberately kept in the background.
Good article but it’s from over five years ago. Just an fyi.
But just as good today as back then.
Aug 4, 2010
But at least we find out why we have this issue right now.
Very current and no matter that it is five years old from Ann Coulter. It shows she was really thinking about immigration even back then
Hell ... it seems the entire government we have today was developed from footnotes !
She ahead of the curve.
...
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 Brennen what happened in the last 84 years of history since US v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898?
You had to cite some utter nonsense and use some silly footnote? If anchor babies was settled by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark (WKA) why go to a silly footnote?
Because there was no jurisprudence in WKA for you Brennen. Justice Gray did not hold in his opinion that illegal aliens who had no permanent residence and who had babies inside the US to be US citizens. There is no there there.
Someone tell ORielly at Fox too.
Next time someone cites Wong Kim Ark as the Alpha & Omega on the issue of birthright citizenship ....
Ann C.: “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.)”
Here’s J. Brennan’s “lunatic statement”:
“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.)”
Or, a white wall is simply a black wall, but it’s white, and there’s no real difference between them otherwise.
Legal, illegal, lawful, unlawful: there’s really no plausible distinction. Up is down, right is wrong ...
With `legal scholarship’ mixed with jackass thinking such as this, is it any wonder we’re in the mess we’re in now?
It’s way past time for some common sense.
It’s a great article, thanks for posting.
That said, I am pissed, however, that neither the candidates, the press, the incumbent GOPe, nor any editorialist SAVE Ann Coulter has put this out in plain, distinct terms.
And they are for the most part legal scholars, some even claiming to be Constitutional scholars.
I guess there really is nobody driving this station wagon we call America.
Thank heaven for Free Republic where the truth ultimately percolates to the surface.
I challenge everyone reading this to become a monthly contributor to FR because its survival means the survival of the US.
It's that simple. Contributing to FR is more important that paying your taxes.
No No , they are not Anchor Babies, that is offensive to the Liberals, they should be called “Anchor Fetuses”.....
I am listenign to Mark levin right now by the way he is raising a point about libs and how leftists call unborn babies fetuses, but unb orn babies of illgals as babies....
This would explain why Eisenhower was able to rout illegals out of this country with Operation Wetback, 1959, while today our government seems to be hamstrung, or unwilling in enforce its own immigration laws.
“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.”
J. `Roe v. Wade’ Brennan, 1982
`Birthright citizenship’ and lawful v. unlawful entry.
There it is.
Did you even bother to read the article, familyop?
You are still citing the same tired, “Wong Kim Ark settled the matter for infinity! and if you disagree with me, you must be some kind of totalitarian monster ...” crap we’ve been seeing here forever.
Screw that.
Go Trump!
Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, after observing that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth articles of amendment of the constitution were all addressed to the grievances of the negro race, and were designed to remedy them, continued as follows: 'We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly, while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so, if other rights are assailed by the states, which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent.' 16 Wall. 72. And, in treating of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment, he said: 'The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the state to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.' Id. 73, 74.
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state...
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.