Some History Of Birthright Citizenship

[Wake-up!]

THE TRUE HISTORY OF MILLSTONE BABIES
October 31, 2018
Copyright by Ann Coulter
From:  http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-31.html

[Wake-up has a few editorial comments italicized and in brackets.]

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. [Congress and/or the supreme court convey privileges, NOT rights. Rights are inherent, beyond the reach of government.]

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!


YOU MEAN THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

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. [Not rights, but privileges.]

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 see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

[Diane Amberg]

Uh, are you sure Trump won't be President "forever?" I'm sure, if he's having enough "fun," he'll just sign an executive order to have himself excused from any term limits. Current laws, the entire Constitution and its amendments and the reason for them, mean nothing to him. After all, no matter what the subject, it's all about him. He has to be the center of all attention and he really can't help it.There is a defective part of his brain that makes him the way he is. But, we have to live with it.
Regardless, don't forget to vote on Tuesday.I could go on and on about what's really happening with wages vs standard of living,the loss of personal deductions, the real impact of tariffs and who is affected and the  deportation threats to hard working legal immigrants who do so much of the yucky work that many people won't lower themselves to do.
There were so few people here to pick the blue crabs this summer, the price, if you could find cans of crab at all, went sky high. I never did get to make my homemade crab cakes this year. It just wasn't available in our stores. What there was, went to the restaurant trade.

[Wake-up!]

No, I'm not sure. Last March Trump signed an EO authorizing martial law starting January 2019, in order to arrest and prosecute the people whose names are on some 52,000 affidavits his Dept. of Justice has compiled since he took office. Some big heads are going to roll, if the Trump supporters on 8chan are correct. The military will arrest and prosecute military, civilian government employees, and private citizens. That's scary to me, and illegal, but legalese is not my field. If you watched the Dept. of Defense video of its vision for 2030, you know its vision is martial law world-wide, with an emphasis on major cities around the world. It appears the world is moving that direction whether Sir Donald serves two terms, declares himself benevolent dictator, or is impeached after next week's election. IMO, we have been moving in that direction since Bush the Elder became president in '88, and Clinton, Baby George [not to be confused with Boy George :<))] and Hussein have all furthered the cause. And I'm pretty sure Hillary, Bernie, or Pence would simply stay the course, given the chance.

So I can't put it all on Sir Donald. Yea, he's a egomaniacal horse's backside, loves the attention, and would be a lousy next door neighbor. But, if one were in the development field he might be a great colleague or boss. I don't think his brain is defective, it serves him very well. The press excoriates him out of hate and malice, creating a bigger monster, IMO. If all those affidavits are real and the swamp is drained of corrupt politicians and government employees lining their coffers with tax-payer money, I will see his tenure favorably, regardless of what else he may do, or fail to do. My big worry is that all the 8chan/Qanon talk is true, but the Justice Dept. will not cross the aisle and round up the likes of Baby George, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other corrupt Republicans.

So many economic indicators show downward trends right now that I do not know how any status-quo government can react to prevent more poverty, more homelessness, more starvation, or more penal institutionalization. My understanding is that the profitable Wall Streeters right now are making their dough from stock re-acquisition. But don't ask me how that happens [I don't think it actually does. It just shows more stock under corporate control and, on paper, increases the corporations' black ink]. The old concepts of investment based on profits versus costs, returns on investment, and dividends seem to be out the window.

I'm personally convinced the way to minimize the damage is to drastically reduce government size and expenditures, end all personal taxation, and gradually transfer viable programs from public hands to private hands. We need to reverse the 0n-going transfer of wealth from workers and families to corporate board rooms and government controlled banking institutions. Regardless, people are going to suffer. I'm pretty sure most politicians know it, so they just keep kicking the can down the road, hoping someone else will get the blame, and doing nothing to help anyone other than themselves in the process.

I am, for the second time in my life, buying bulk volumes of rice, beans, oatmeal, nuts and seeds, and stuff like toilet paper and water filtration [Y2K was the first]. I expect shortages when martial law rears its ugly head next year. Hope I'm wrong, but unwilling to risk I am not.

[Diane Amberg]

I really enjoyed your post. Thanks. I've always bought in bulk for many basics...mainly because I'm frugal (read cheapskate) to get the best prices.Tomorrow will be rainy here, so that may dampen ( bad pun) people's resolve to get out and vote.I sell Bingo games on Monday nights at out firehouse and I have a hat to wear that says, " Tomorrow... VOTE." Oddly, we've heard nothing from the League of Women Voters this time around.They used to be active here and would arrange rides for people to get to polling places as needed. In some states trying to discourage voters and voting, one would be hard pressed to even find a polling place, let alone go vote at one. Grrr. Cheating to win and then bragging about the win is sick and very unChristian in my view. I finally picked my candidates for tomorrow, and as always, it will be a mix of parties.