Just saying.
BZ
Illegal Mexicans: the obvious
Tag Archives: Illegal Mexicans
In the US: end “birthright citizenship”
Because, after all, if it’s good enough for Harry Reid, it’s good enough for me.
It’s also apparently good enough for Louisiana Senator David Vitter:
Vitter happened to quote from another figure who advocated for the end of birthright citizenship: Harry Reid.
In 1993, Reid introduced S.1351, called the Immigrant Stabilization Act. As you can see when you click the link, this bill was proposed solely by Reid himself, fully credited.
Reid said then, in a 1993 speech:
If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that is a lot of services.
Reid is entirely correct. Vitter agrees. And so do I, wholeheartedly. Reid continued:
Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”
No wonder at all. True then and true now. Want proof of Reid’s words? Here it is:
Reid later verbally regretted the move in 1999. That was because he realized he was moving closer and closer to more true power in DC and his seniority in the Demorat Party helped immensely. Demorats counseled him to walk back his earlier remarks. Also, Nevada became flooded with illegal Mexicans, a firm expanding base of Demorat voters who filled the mandatory two-pronged ideal: 1) ignorant and 2) needy, not independent.
And nothing smells better to a Demorat than another ignorant, needy, Mexican voter.
Demography is prophecy. As such, we are well on our way to turning the Left Coast into what Victor Davis Hanson calls “Mexifornia.” That is to say: purposely “importing” the same ignorant mindset that has turned Mexico into the southern country from which people have, for decades, wanted to escape. DC is purposely importing unskilled, uneducated and disease-ridden illegals into the United States. For one reason only: votes.
When illegal children began flooding our southern border in huge waves roughly two years ago, is it any surprise whatsoever that diseases the US hadn’t seen in any kind of significant numbers shot skywards? TB? Pertussis? Swine flu? Dengue? Measles? All over the US? DC purposely took those children and hid them in communities all around the states, refusing to tell anyone what they had done and where they had stashed those children, in order to hide them. Then it lied about the statistics.
Like Vitter, like the younger Harry Reid, I too support the end of “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment says:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
But: does the 14th absolutely guarantee birthright citizenship?
No European country does this, and much of Europe is either based upon actual, perceived or wished Socialism.
Some people think the 14th Amendment actually allows Congress to end “birthright citizenship” once and for all.
The 14th Amendment only commands citizenship to persons born on US soil to parents who are not citizens of a foreign country. It does not command “anchor babies” or “birthright citizenship.”
RUMOR: The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born to parents illegally in the U.S.
FACT: The current law that grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens is Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which uses language similar to the 14th Amendment, regarding persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Critics argue that automatic birthright citizenship could be changed by revoking the statute. Others say it would require a constitutional amendment because they believe the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship. However, nobody can say what the 14th Amendment means until the Supreme Court interprets it. The court has not done that (The 19th century case – United States v. Wong Kim Ark – that some outlets are reporting concerned a legal Chinese immigrant).
The Birthright Citizenship Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act – not the constitution – to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.
And there you go. Just a modicum of logic used.
I say: end automatic “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.”
Leftists will squeal like stuck pigs.
Because: there goes their ignorant and needy voting base.
BZ
Monday: Ferguson grand jury in?
St Louis County has promised local law enforcement a 48-hour “heads-up” prior to the official release of its grand jury results regarding prosecution of former Ferguson Police Department (MO) Officer Dennis Wilson, whose likeness I shall not post here. The media already has a sufficient number of photographs of Officer Wilson and his home with its address and surrounding neighborhood.
In the meantime, as I write this ahead (it is Sunday night at roughly 9 PM Pacific), Ferguson is already at a boil — certainly not assisted by the loving New Black Panthers and the overall delay of the decision.
It’s as if the blacks extant cannot wait to riot and cork off. Frankly, I believe that to be true, no matter the decision.
Further, a young black Marine says: pull your damned pants up.
A challenge unaccepted and refuted in Ferguson, Missouri.
Is this what preparation looks like in Ferguson?
Pants up. Yeah. Right.
BZ
LAWLESSNESS: Obama does away with the Legislative branch of the US government
With a stroke of His Imperial Pen, Mr Obama has shredded the US Constitution and driven the United States towards the realm of any given pathetic banana republic. Perhaps Mr Obama is simply trying to create more stars and bars upon the epaulets of his faux uniform.
Unlawfully and unconstitutionally, Mr Obama has decided unilaterally that he can create his own nation-changing law and bypass Congress entirely — which means he has completely done away with a full third of foundational American government. For those requiring a reminder, the three branches are: Executive, Judicial and Legislative. Mr Obama has kicked aside the Legislative branch: the US Congress.
This is a day of infamy. A day of Constitutional infamy.
What will this do? It will incentivize people from far away — think Central America and South America, like the children a few months ago — to attempt to invade our southern border. Some will come from the north and some from our lateral coasts.
“The problem is the central attribute you have to have as any leader, in any walk of life and certainly in government is trust,” Ron Fournier of the National Journal said. “This president has destroyed the credibility of his administration himself and government itself.”
Hugh Hewitt said that condescension is the proper response to Mr Obama’s executive order. And I would tend to agree. What is not warranted is any kind of reaction to include either a “shutdown of government” or an “impeachment.” That would be playing right into the seriously stupid hands of Leftists.
That said, I don’t trust the GOP to not be stupid. I wish I were more assured of a proper GOP response.
An edict such as this, no matter its name, is a precedent set that few people will want. It is a precedent that can be referred-to in the future by future presidents. Republican presidents. Actions presidents take, unhalted, do nothing but provide fodder for more power-taking in the future. Demorats fail to see and understand this concept. They apparently can only think of the here and now. This is nullification of laws and an essential re-writing of laws. By one man.
Leftists “justify” Obama’s actions by pointing to Ronald Reagan, who they say created his own Executive Order with regard to immigrants. And that is completely INcorrect. Please see this very important article by Gabriel Malor.
This nation has checks and balances for a reason. There can never be an Imperial President. There can never be a monarch in the United States of America. However, when Leftists and Demorats set a precedent, they fail to realize that a reverse precedent can thusly be set. A presidential temper tantrum cannot and should not set precedent but it appears to be. Where is his stated authority for this?
Which means: what if a president decided to turn a blind eye to lynching homosexuals? What if a president decided to declare no borders? What if a president decided to declare drugs fully lawful?
What if this president sets precedent for the reverse?
Further:
What if this means Americans can pick and choose which laws THEY wish to obey and which laws they wish to disregard. Goose/gander.
BZ
P.S.
Demorats and Leftists and parts of the GOP tried to bury us Conservatives. They didn’t realize: we are seeds.
Immigration and invasion:
Laura Ingraham vs Bill O’Reilly on illegal immigration: Ingraham wins big
Watch and see:
What are your thoughts? In my opinion, O’Reilly is a sellout. What is it about the word “illegal” that O’Reilly fails to grasp? This is an open door to lawlessness and the picking and choosing of which laws to obey and which to disregard.
On many occasions I respect O’Reilly. I have no respect for him here. As far as he’s apparently concerned, when Mr Obama grants what is essentially amnesty to millions — yes, millions — of illegal aliens with a stroke of his Executive Order pen very soon, that is an event the likes of which you should not oppose.
You’re wrong O’Reilly. Dead wrong. And you don’t care, because your job isn’t affected and you can afford whatever fiscal hits this mandates on any level.
Sorry O’Reilly; you’re being a pinhead here.
BZ