Anchors Belong On Ships

May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
Tell the hand holding this sign that America does not run on illegal aliens:

A study by Tom Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted that an amnesty for DACA illegal aliens will spur increased welfare usage by anchor babies, as amnestied parents of those citizen children are more likely to enroll their kids in federal welfare programs if they, themselves, are legal residents rather than illegal aliens.​

Paul Ryan’s Amnesty to Increase Number of Anchor Babies on Welfare
by John Binder
16 Jun 2018Washington, D.C.

Paul Ryan's Amnesty to Increase Number of Anchor Babies on Welfare | Breitbart

Only in America can parasites sue:

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State’s College Tuition Policy
November 2, 2011 9:29 AM

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State?s College Tuition Policy « CBS Tampa

The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans, nor are their babies American after they squat and drop on American soil; hence, their children do not meet the eligibility requirements should they get Ryan’s path to citizenship which is his goal before he sneaks out of town in the dead of night.

Admittedly, no one expects a flood of anchor babies running for the presidency in the near future, but it is not hard to image a presidential eligibility mess somewhere down the road. The next mess will not take as long as the time it took between Chester A. Arthur’s presidency, 1881 to 1885, and Obama’s.

NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat was American on his mother’s side. His presidential eligibility is another matter.

A casual approach to the eligibility clause prevailed after Arthur beat the system. It was understood that an ineligible person in the presidential line of succession would not become president should the situation arise. To my way of thinking, no one belongs in the line of succession if they are ineligible. Losing the services of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Mitch McConnell’s wife, et al. would not be a great loss to the country.

Also, there was no great rush to strictly enforce the eligibility clause after Arthur because no one thought he hated America. Not so with Obama. The next ineligible, America-hating, president will build upon every betrayal the sewer rat got away with. That is not to say that an eligible president will not do it, too. Bill Clinton is a case in point, but he only dreamt about executing the betrayals Obama got away with.

Incidentally, When I was young I thought that anyone born under the American flag was automatically a U.S. citizen even if the birth took place on a ship at sea flying the American flag. I do not know where I got that idea, but I never gave it much thought. Illegal immigration was not a problem in the 1940s and ‘50s. Like most Americans I believed the federal government would protect this country’s borders. I learned otherwise in recent years, as well as coming to a better understanding of the 14th Amendment and the Eligibility Clause in the Constitution.

The fact is, anchor babies are not citizens of the United States, and the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to babies born on American soil.​

CNN Debate Fails On 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
Douglas V. Gibbs Wednesday, October 19, 2011


Thursday, June 16, 2011
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens

Political Pistachio: Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens

Anchor Babies was used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right. They are not Americans at birth.

NOTE: Paul Ryan and his RINO are knowingly close to passing an unconstitutional law. Listen closely to what Mark Levin said before Trump won the election:

The amnesty crowd is hinting at a compromise because they know they are backing a loser. The story is let the anchor babies who were born here stay with THEIR RELATIVES, but close the loophole in the future. That is an incremental trap.

Here are two compromises the open-borders crowd will never agree to:

1. Deport the parents along with illegal alien relatives, but let the children stay here until they turn 18 years old when they can be deported. Families will then be reunited in their own country. Do it that way so the blame falls on their parents for breaking the law instead of letting the filthy sneaks in Congress lay a guilt trip on Americans.

2. If the Supreme Court ever rules that anchor babies are American citizens send the kids home with their parents with proof of citizenship documentation that allows them to return after they turn 18.

Parenthetically, the halfwits on the Supreme Court could not figure out the Constitution when illegal aliens squat and drop their kids on American soil; so what in hell are they going to do with this one?

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies
JP Carroll
National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter
9:08 PM 10/07/2016

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies | The Daily Caller

Surrogate baby machines are expensive; so selling birth certificates became a cottage.

Regardless of what happens to the economy after illegal aliens are deported, Americans will get their country back and be better off for it. Americans can work their way through economic downturns, but it is impossible if tens of millions of illegal aliens are here when the economy tanks as it always does. That is called a boom and bust cycle.

Naturally, the lady who so admires Margaret Sanger had to chime in:

“They’re called babies,” Hillary Rodham Clinton posted on Twitter.​

Hillary’s twitter was a big mistake:

Babies? When they are inside the womb, and having their faces cut open, their brains crushed, or when they are cut into pieces, Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn't call them babies. She calls them fetuses. Illegal aliens claim it is dehumanizing to call anchor babies anchor babies, but liberals have no problem dehumanizing babies by calling them fetuses and then joking over wine and salad about dismembering their bodies, as a Planned Parenthood official was caught on video doing recently.

Hillary Clinton has no right to speak out on "Anchor babies" when she calls dismembered babies "fetuses". But if that is a favorite liberal word, maybe we should do what Mark Levins suggests and call them "anchor fetuses". That shouldn't upset them, right? Liberals don't get upset when fetuses are dissected. What's deportation compared to that?

Just remember it's all about language. They want to take away our ability to criticize these people who are stealing citizenship for themselves and their families. If we lose the ability to say what they are, if we are forced to call them "dreamers", we lose the battle.​

August 21, 2015
If 'anchor babies' is too incendiary, how about 'anchor fetuses'?
By Newsmachete

The number of innocent human beings killed with kindness amounts to fifty-five-million-plus abortions in this country alone.

Finally, Ann Coulter had it right. I especially enjoyed this:

Conservative firebrand and bestselling author Ann Coulter joined Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa Tuesday – and she delivered an epic smackdown of “speech Nazis” who ridiculed the GOP frontrunner for using the term “anchor baby.”

“Apparently liberals think ‘anchor baby’ isn’t pleasant sounding,” she said in a speech introducing Trump at the event. “They prefer words like ‘aborted baby.'”

She continued,“But I have an idea. How about anvil babies – because that’s what anchor babies are around the necks of the American taxpayer.”
Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown
On 'anchor babies': 'Maybe it'd be better to keep their mouths shut'
Published: 08/25/2015 at 9:18 PM

Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown

Unfortunately, Ann’s anvil idea was dead in the water. The speech Nazis will never let Americans decide they want to be the hammers for a while:

And is it not interesting that the highest paid network mouths are called anchors? QUESTION: If they are anchors what in hell are they anchoring? ANSWER: Their tax dollar salaries.
Last edited:
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
Anchor Babies was used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right.
and he won the election.

He will lose more than the House if he signs anything that gives amnesty to illegal aliens in any form:

Lou Dobbs: If Paul Ryan ‘Deceives’ Trump into DACA Amnesty, GOP Will Lose House Majority
by John Binder
16 Jun 2018 Washington, D.C.

Lou Dobbs: If Paul Ryan 'Deceives' Trump into DACA Amnesty, GOP Will Lose House Majority | Breitbart
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.

The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans, nor are their babies American after they squat and drop on American soil; hence, their children do not meet the eligibility requirements should they get Ryan’s path to citizenship which is his goal before he sneaks out of town in the dead of night.
Freakazoids are so busy concentrating on killing babies they have no time for this one:

One of the biggest challenges in the immigration debate today is that the American people are routinely given faulty "facts" or outright lies by the media and opportunistic politicians. The media-manufactured crisis over separating children from their illegal alien parents at the southern border is just the most recent example. The misrepresented photos, absurd comparisons of detention centers to concentration camps, and nonstop cable news demagoguery have served to confuse the public and advance the narrative of the open borders movement.

Now comes a whopper: much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue in Fitisemanu: whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission? The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left's immigration agenda.

For decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born in the United States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists – as citizens at birth under the Constitution. This all-inclusive interpretation of birthright citizenship, repeated endlessly in the mainstream media, is what gave rise to the "anchor baby" phenomenon. With children born in the United States to illegal alien parents instantly qualifying for welfare and other state and local benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to have their children born in the U.S. is immense.

Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States. The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe. The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship. The Court's decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.

By the time Fitisemanu v. United States gets to the SCOTUS wannabe Justice Brett Kavanaugh will have a vote. Democrats need not worry. Republicans cannot overturn a 45 year incorrect decision to save millions of infants from the baby butchers. Assuming four libs are still there, can anybody see the Court overturning a 120 year incorrect decision?

Based on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins v. Elk, the still controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one was born in the United States to a U.S. resident parent who, at the time, both had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance to the United States. This rule happens to exclude the children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the country) and tourists (who do not "reside" here) from constitutional birthright citizenship.

Interpreted correctly, the precedents of these cases would work a sea change in immigration law as it is currently applied. In addition to shrinking the magnet for illegal passage across the southern border, recognition of the correct rule would prevent crass exploitation of our laws by the "birth tourism" industry, in which foreign nationals essentially plan an American vacation with the explicit purpose of bearing a child here. The payoff is a U.S. passport for the child, who would then have the right to sponsor the parents for citizenship when he reaches 21 years of age. Is this an objective of U.S. immigration policy or a mockery of it?

In her virtue-signaling attacks on Trump administration immigration policy, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) declared an urgent need to "reimagine" the purpose of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While that proposal is childlike, unserious, and a political nonstarter, she's correct that some reimagining of immigration law is overdue. A good place to start would be the loopholes and misinterpretations that have allowed birthright citizenship to be manipulated in ways that run counter to America's best interests.
July 11, 2018
It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship
By Brian Lonergan
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.

The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans, nor are their babies American after they squat and drop on American soil;
Tax dollars will serve a better purpose if it used to ship illegal alien mothers and their children back to their homelands.

The cost to taxpayers of births on American soil to illegal immigrants is about $2.4 billion every year, according to a new study.​
The Center for Immigration Studies said its research is based on an analysis of the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The government data, CIS said, “provides a good picture of births to immigrant mothers, including the mothers’ demographic characteristics.”​
“These characteristics allow us to estimate the likely number of births to illegal immigrants nationally, as well as births by state and by large metropolitan area.”​
Read a summary of the study​
Citing 2014 government statistics, CIS said its best estimate is that legal immigrants accounted for 12.4 percent (494,000) of all births and illegal immigrants for 7.5 percent (297,000).​
The number of illegal immigrant births is larger than the total number of births in any state other than California and Texas.​
The United States automatically awards citizenship to anyone born in the country, including those born to temporary visitors or illegal immigrants.​
The estimated 28,000 births to illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles metro area alone is larger than the total number of births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.​
CIS pointed out that among the native-born, 42 percent of new mothers are either uninsured or on Medicaid.​
The rate is even higher among new mothers who are legal immigrants (47 percent) and higher still for new mothers who are in the United States illegally (67 percent).​
Almost all of these births are likely paid for by taxpayers, CIS noted.​
Of all births likely paid for by taxpayers, about one in four (429,000) was to an immigrant (legal or illegal).​
'Anchor babies' cost taxpayers $2.4 billion annually​
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 10/11/2018 @ 7:44 pm​
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
Hillary Clinton failed to steal the election; so she is stealing the only thing she has going for her comeback: THE POPULAR VOTE. Take away her illegal votes and she lost the popular vote big time.​
Note that Los Angeles, California alone was good for a million illegal alien votes.​
A Streetcar Named Erdogan

It is no wonder that Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the electoral collage:

More Illegal Aliens Giving Birth to Anchor Babies in Los Angeles than Total U.S. Births in 14 States​
by John Binder​
10 Oct 2018​
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
Anchor Babies was used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right. They are not Americans at birth.
Three cheers for pulling up the anchor:

President Trump is planning to end birthright citizenship, calling the right for babies of noncitizens and illegal immigrants born in the U.S. to have citizenship “ridiculous.”​
"How ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump told “Axios on HBO.” “It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end.​
Previously Trump said he was initially told it could only happen through a constitutional amendment, but now an executive order may be sufficient.​
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment," he told Axios’s Jonathan Swan. "Guess what? You don't."​
"You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order," said Trump.​
The president confirmed to Axios that he’s had the conversation with counsel and that “it’s in the process.”​
“It will happen with an executive order," Trump said.​

Trump Is Planning to End Birthright Citizenship Through Executive Order​
Leah Barkoukis​
Posted: Oct 30, 2018 6:45 AM​

If possible, the next EO should end chain migration.

Dumping DACA is a tough one but it is doable:

Nutso Nancy is using DACA Dreamers as the wedge that will open our borders. After all, what harm can amnesty for a few illegal aliens do when they have been here most of their lives? Answer: A lot of harm when Pelosi is involved.​

Speaker Pelosi Will Open The Border To Disease & Pestilence
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
“It will happen with an executive order," Trump said.
Prepare for another invasion —— only the next invasion will be led by “Americans” doing the attacking. This article provides the weapons needed to repel the invaders:

Democrats – and even some Republicans – were scandalized on Tuesday when President Trump suggested he could issue an executive order to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and illegal immigrants born on American soil.​
But talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said Trump’s idea is based on interpreting the wording of the 14th Amendment, and all it took was someone with intestinal fortitude to suggest it.​
“Man, this is great, what Trump is doing on birthright citizenship. Oh! This is exactly why Trump was elected, as my good friend Andy McCarthy said, ‘You’ve gotta have somebody that’s willing to break the furniture. You have to have somebody willing to turn things upside down if you’re actually going to get things done,’ and the left is beside itself today,” he said.​
The issue is the interpretation of the amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and of the state wherein they reside.”​
It was adopted at a time when the American public was worried about the proper treatment of slaves and their descendants.​
But it’s been interpreted to grant citizenship to any baby born in the country. And so-called “anchor babies” have been used by illegal alien parents as grounds to allow them and their extended families to remain in the United States.​
Trump argues the amendment can be read a different way.​
Limbaugh pointed to the key words “naturalized” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”​
“You are not naturalized and you are not subject to the U.S. jurisdiction if you’re here illegally! You cannot be!” Limbaugh explained.​
“You’re under some other country’s jurisdiction. If you’re here illegally, you cannot possibly be naturalized. Well, the birthright citizenship crowd – which wants to water down American culture and destroy Western civilization – conveniently leaves out ‘naturalized’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’​
“So your born-here child absolutely is not a citizen. This is what Trump is saying. Trump is finally pushing back against an assumption that has been made because it was the path of least resistance, if you will. But now it’s make-or-break time.”​

President Trump’s EO gives Americans time to pass legislation, or get a correct ruling from the SCOTUS, before the next Democrat president drops the anchor again.

The Associated Press described Trump’s proposal as another “hardline immigration play in the final days before the midterm elections.”​
“He has sought to focus on fearmongering over immigration,” the AP charged.​
And it accused the president of “seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress” by “stoking anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border.”​
Limbaugh said: “Everybody is saying, ‘He can’t do that! That’s the 14th Amendment. You can’t universally – with an executive order – reverse the 14th Amendment.’ We want to discuss how maybe he can. He’ll again run into activist judges that will turn him down here, but the point is that you need somebody like Donald Trump.​
“If the case can be made – and people believe that it can be – that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants who are under the jurisdiction of another country, then Trump can do it,” he said.​
Establishment politicians, both Republican and Democrat, rejected the idea. Outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., objected to using an executive order.​

And where in hell did Paul Ryan get the nerve lining up with conservatives or the CONSTITUTION?

“We didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously as conservatives, we believe in the Constitution,” he said.​
Columnist Ann Coulter reacted: “Can we finally admit that ‘moderate Republicans’ are illiterate morons? Paul Ryan unfamiliar with a period in our nation’s history known as ‘The Civil War.'”​
Can we finally admit that “moderate Republicans” are illiterate morons? Paul Ryan unfamiliar with a period in our nation’s history known as “The Civil War.” The Hill on Twitter
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) October 30, 2018​
Limbaugh said it’s just the next step in Trump’s commitments as a candidate “to build a wall, to get a handle on illegal immigration (and to stop it) because of its forever-changing consequences to this country.”​
“The left wants this country overthrown from the days of its founding. To the left, America’s illegitimate, it’s immoral, it’s indecent because we were a slave nation and we discriminated and the original white privilege was the Founding Fathers,” he said.​
“Folks, as I said throughout the first year of Trump’s presidency: This is what pushing back looks like. It was never gonna be clean and it was never gonna be quiet. Pushing back against the liberal order of the day was always going to be noisy and it was going to be potentially violent and dangerous. After all, these are people who do not accept election results anymore, and you know what that means. You know what’s held this country together all of these years is the honoring of election results,” said Limbaugh.​
He pointed out that top levels of the Obama DOJ “were used to overthrow Trump, and to then run a silent coup to try to throw Donald Trump back out of office and reverse those election results.”​
“It’s unprecedented,” he said.​
“But it is a seminal moment when a political party, as its official position, refuses to accept election results. That’s where we are, and that’s why we’re where we are. They refuse to accept it, for whatever reason. They hate Trump, they don’t feel good about it, they disagree, whatever. Doesn’t matter why. Just the fact that they refuse to accept the results is a horribly dangerous thing. Because what if it keeps up? What if the only time there is peace in America is when they win elections?”​
The facts, he said, are that “an illegal alien here is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.”​
“They’re under the jurisdiction of where they came from if they’re here illegally.”​

Anchor babies away! Trump's 'birthright' plan awakens U.S.​
Posted By Bob Unruh On 10/30/2018 @ 4:22 pm​
May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
Media mouths voicing their opinions on overt Democrat networks are required to speak out against everything that strengthens this country’s sovereignty, while most opinion mouths on PHONY FOX must camouflage their support for birthright citizenship. Lady Ann’s piece is loaded with facts for anyone who is interested in learning why anchor babies are NOT American citizens:

Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.​
In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.​
Such is the case today with “anchor babies” and “birthright citizenship.” People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.​
If you’d like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!​
Of course the president can end the citizenship of “anchor babies” by executive order — for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.​
It’s just something everyone believes to be true.​
How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?​
The first question would be: Why would they do that? It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?​
The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”​
Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!​
You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!​
Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.​
You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!​
As the court has explained again and again and again:​
“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”​
That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.​
The 14th Amendment fixed that.​
The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.​
Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?​
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.​
President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.​
But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about “civil rights,” you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.​
Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect!​
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”​
It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”​
This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.​
Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.​
No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.​
Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.​
It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now we see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.​

Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies​
by Ann Coulter​
31 Oct 2018​

Similar Discussions