Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Ever wonder where the concept of "Anchor Babies" came from?


AnnCoulter tells us.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

INVASION USA
Justice Brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies
Ann Coulter spells out who it is 14th Amendment was meant to cover

Posted: August 04, 2010
6:19 pm Eastern

By Ann Coulter


WorldNetDaily

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're eight and a half 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.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it sneaked in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves – many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "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."

The drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians – because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

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).

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 14th 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.)

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 on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement – who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

(Column continues below)

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."

In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.

20 comments:

rexxhead said...

Thank you, Ann, for saying out loud what everyone else prefers to keep quiet about: the hullabaloo about 'illegal immigration' is really all about 'who gets to drink from the welfare trough'.

If there were no welfare trough, 'illegal immigration' would be a non-issue.

Dennis308 said...

When someone enters the United
States Legally they put themselves under the Jurisdiction of the United States. And they accept to live by the Law of the land.

But when someone enters The United States Illegally they have not accepted that Sovereign Jurisdiction and there fore NOT entitled to the Protection of that Jurisdiction.

"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."

The above is from Section 1. of the Fourteenth Amendment. But not all of it. There is ALSO Sections 2. 3. 4. that in some cases prevented the men that fought in the Confederate Army from voting or holding certain Elected Offices and Voided and Declared Illegal Any Obligation to Pay Debts or Damages of the War Between the States.

So from what I see Looking at my copy of the Constitution the 14th was NEVER Intended to be applied to Criminals or their Offspring.

But was In Fact written to Protect the former slaves and to punish the the Rebellious Southern States.

But of Course we will have to see how this ends up in the courts. If it gets that far. Only one thing for sure no matter how it end´s up, somebody is gonna be Pissed.


Dennis
III
Texas

Anonymous said...

Always trust Ann Coulter to lay the factual smackdown on the right people at the right time. Which is ANYTIME.
I love her and her no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners style.
(But that girl could DEFINITELY stand to put a little more meat on them bones of hers).

B Woodman
III-per

Dedicated_Dad said...

I'm not even sure that Brennan's footnote REALLY intended to set off the whole anchor-baby nonsense.

I swear, as we all know, no sane person would ever wish for what is likely coming.

That said, as each new day continues to bring yet another outrage, it becomes ever more impossible to believe there's any possible resolution to our sickness other than painful, bloody surgery to excise the cancer that will otherwise be the death of our Republic.

Frankly, I increasingly find myself wishing we'd just go ahead and get it over with - as it seems to me the longer we wait, the harder it's going to be...

On topic, it's just a matter of time until this nonsense really begins coming home to roost...

Jose was born in the US - one of Stockton's 70%. He was raised in his parents' village in Michoacan, after being born here.

A troubled childhood - filled with violent behavior, torture of small animals, etc - and finally we find him arrested and charged with a serious crime.

At that point, he begins to scream that he's an "American Citizen" and wants to speak with "his" Consulate.

Use your imagination -- we haven't even scratched the surface of all the ramifications...

DD

Anonymous said...

Stockton, Kali-forny-ah is 23 million dollars in the hole due to anchor babies ? WHY ?

WHY don't the city fathers just tell Ahh-nold and the Feds to go to hell ! I mean, really.....how difficult is it to tell the state and the Feds....GO FUCK YOURSELF !

This anchor baby argument would be non-existent if the municipal governments and the states would just refuse to pay for these people. REFUSE !

Again....I blame the voters.

DAN
III

Defender said...

One of the network evening news talking heads even talked about the trend of people coming to the U.S. "on vacation" and having their babies. Maybe Big Media are starting to feel a groundswell of disgruntlement.

Anonymous said...

Rexxhead, Not to jump on your case, but the libertarian argument "if there were no welfare trough" is an utter and complete waste of breath. There is _going_ to be some degree of welfare as long as the current governmental structure stays intact. The question is whether illegal aliens have any right to it.

Also, your argument posits that the differential between wages here and in Latin America, China, etc. would not tempt illegals to sneak in here -- I'm not convinced of that either.
Daniel K Day

Anonymous said...

At the economic peak, the big hospital here was doing 12,000 deliveries a year. Of that about 4,000 had no insurance, with 3,000 probably being illegals. An average delivery in this market runs about $ 5,000. So every year this hospital was passing along $ 15 M in unpaid anchor babies.

TSA wants to scan my body when I fly for contraband and in the news the Marshall's service stores their body scans. Why can't we priority deport scanned illegals?

III more than them said...

"WHY don't the city fathers just tell Ahh-nold and the Feds to go to hell ! I mean, really.....how difficult is it to tell the state and the Feds....GO FUCK YOURSELF !"

Oh, that's an easy one. Stockton would lose its Federal funding for all kinds of welfare and redevelopment programs. They get a nice chunk of change each year. Being the bastion of violent crime that it is (2.28x the national average), every penny they get to rebuild the ravaged downtown and surrounding decrepit areas is coveted.

Another reason is that they just might see legal action against them, by the ACLU, that would amount to even more dollars going to the criminal aliens.

A third reason would be the freaking riots that WOULD face, as the alien population goes on a La Raza crime spree.

4th..... some of them in power are OWNED.

I could go, on, but I'm mad enough about that stinking hole as it is.

ON another note: Harry Reid was on Fox today, and said that the 14th is for illegals, too. No one on Fox called him on it; no one anywhere else, except on talk radio, called him on it; and no Republicrats called him on it.....

Talk show hosts... the guys some of us make fun of and claim are on the other side?? THEY CALLED HIM ON IT.

Think about those facts for a few minutes, and let some adjustments come to your thinking.

Anonymous said...

"But when someone enters The United States Illegally they have not accepted that Sovereign Jurisdiction and there fore NOT entitled to the Protection of that Jurisdiction."

Not entitled to the protection? Does that mean you can't call on the fire department and can't sue in court, but in return you have no tax liability and the police don't interfere if you choose to shoot a home invader yourself? No, that's not what it means. Whether you consent to accept the sovereign jurisdiction is irrelevant to the behavior of the legal system.

Anonymous said...

"WHY don't the city fathers just tell Ahh-nold and the Feds to go to hell ! I mean, really.....how difficult is it to tell the state and the Feds....GO FUCK YOURSELF !"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Oh, that's an easy one. Stockton would lose its Federal funding for all kinds of welfare and redevelopment programs. They get a nice chunk of change each year. Being the bastion of violent crime that it is (2.28x the national average), every penny they get to rebuild the ravaged downtown and surrounding decrepit areas is coveted."

Now WHY is it I knew someone would argue Stockton losing it's Federal funding ? I just KNEW someone would address that. So, what we have here is, like most of America, you admit and accept the FEDs own us ! To paraphrase Pete Stark, D-CA, "they (FEDS) can do whatever they want."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Another reason is that they just might see legal action against them, by the ACLU, that would amount to even more dollars going to the criminal aliens."

Here you go again....fear of an activist organization who "might" seek legal recourse. How's about Stockton telling the judiciary and the ACLU to "go fuck yourself"....and I mean tell them literally ! Then not show up for the prelim. What are the FEDs going to do ? Arrest the entire city body ? Maybe it's time for Stockton to quit playing by the FEDs rules ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" A third reason would be the freaking riots that WOULD face, as the alien population goes on a La Raza crime spree."

I guess you don't read this blog very often. Methinks you write like a follower of the Huffington Post and not the Sypsey Street Irregulars.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
" 4th..... some of them in power are OWNED."

Again I take opposition to this comment. They're ALL owned....from the damn dog catcher to the Oval Office and everywhere in between !
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I could go, on, but I'm mad enough about that stinking hole as it is."

You're angry but perhaps you should be angry at yourself. Why ? Because all you did in your post,IMO, was to offer up defeatist apologies and excuses why Stockton shouldn't just tell obama and Ahh-nold to go to hell.

Sir....you are part of the problem. You are not part of the solution. The word "sacrifice" is not part of your vocabulary, is it ?

DAN
III

Anonymous said...

If you ever wondered how long the red subversion of our country has been going on........

How is it that a footnote has so much power? How is it that the Reds have so much power?

Anonymous said...

The Red Subversion... I like that.

They basically do whatever is expedient at the time.

For example Mayor Bloomberg just stated that the Mosque at Ground Zero should be built because to prevent such would abridge the religious freedom and property rights of the owners. He is right but that would not stop those fuckers for one GD second from using their zoning laws to prevent anything that did not fit into their politically correct view. Think if the NRA moved from VA to that building to setup up HQ. Bloomberg would be shitting shards of glass to prevent 'the gun people' from setting up shop in NYC.

So yes it's amazing that some little piss ant footnote can be used by the Reds to ass rape us further by use of the Nanny state as a hammer to rob us of first our money and then secondly of our culture as our culture is literally replaced. I like Mexico and think most Mexicans are nice folks that generally trust their gov less than the average American so I really blame our gov for creating the problem.

The gov is literally subsidizing the buying of votes for lib policies through the theft of your current and future wealth.

And to the previous comment about Ann - I like my chicks skinny and yes she usually nails it :)

Cory

Anonymous said...

""if there were no welfare trough" is an utter and complete waste of breath. There is _going_ to be some degree of welfare as long as the current governmental structure stays intact. The question is whether illegal aliens have any right to it."

The purpose of welfare is to 1) buy votes, and 2) sooth liberal white guilt. The whole point of welfare is that it goes to people who haven't earned it. Welfare is a transfer to the unearning by design, and cannot be transformed into an individually tracked unemployment savings plan.

"Also, your argument posits that the differential between wages here and in Latin America, China, etc. would not tempt illegals to sneak in here -- I'm not convinced of that either."

In a free market, the thing you're producing with your work is the wealth. One man can plant corn with a pointed stick like the native Americans did, or one man can drive a farm combine. Who produces more corn per work hour? If farmers took a percentage of their crops home as their pay, which farmer would get paid more corn? Better productivity due to industrialization is the reason for the differential in wages between less and more industrialized countries.

Now, do many people want to better themselves and become more wealthy? Sure. They could drive a farm combine here or at home. There's less red tape to drive one here, so they come here to do it. The only thing preventing a worker from driving a farm combine in Latin America or China is the Latin American or Chinese government. The Chinese government has recently stopped prohibiting so much, and the Chinese are able to become wealthier as a result.

Anonymous said...

Not entitled to the protection? Does that mean you can't call on the fire department and can't sue in court, but in return you have no tax liability and the police don't interfere if you choose to shoot a home invader yourself?No, that's not what it means. Whether you consent to accept the sovereign jurisdiction is irrelevant to the behavior of the legal system.--Anon@ 10:39

Illegal aliens receive due process in these United States because they are subject to the laws of that political jurisdiction where they reside or through which they transit.

Given that they came here of their own volition, it can safely be said that they "consented to accept sovereign jurisdiction" of the political subdivision where they happen to be.

However, they are not citizens and they do not enjoy all the rights and immunities envisioned by the 14th Amendment.

MALTHUS

mr eckert said...

"The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Remember when Hubert Humphrey told us over and over that the Civil Rights Act could never be interpreted so as to require "quotas"?

As Ringo Starr said, "Everything the government touches turns to crap!"

Dennis308 said...

To Anon 10:39

No sir you are wrong. when a guest enters my home they are entitled to my protection, when someone enters my home without my permission they ARE Subject to be Shot.

It is the attitude of people that would surrender their Rights and Personal Sovernignty, not even to speak of Our National Soverignty for Well Being of Everybody that this Country is in the shape it´s in.

Do You understand now, If I don´t invite you to my Home, STAY THE FUCK OUT. If you do not have permission/a visa to go into an other Country stay out. When you do go into that other counry you are not a guest but a invader.

Dennis
III
Texas

PS why do so many not have the courage to say their names, Thank God that men such as John Hancock did not sign ANONYMOUS!

Anonymous said...

"Given that they came here of their own volition, it can safely be said that they "consented to accept sovereign jurisdiction" of the political subdivision where they happen to be."

Malthus, since I presume you stay here "of your own volition", then by your own rules you must have consented to this jurisdiction's rules about voting. Given your consent, how can you justify the idea of resisting this jurisdiction? Or any jurisdiction in history? I think the Jews went into the boxcars peacefully because they held the "consented to accept sovereign jurisdiction" principle, aka a divine right to rule, and some Bad People checkmated them into a mass grave with it.

"If I don´t invite you to my Home, STAY THE FUCK OUT. If you do not have permission/a visa to go into an other Country stay out."

Dennis, your comparison doesn't work because your COUNTRY is not your HOME. You individually own (control) your home. You don't own (control) the country, unless you own (control) it COLLECTIVELY, but Communism is a disaster.

"why do so many not have the courage to say their names"

Using names here is a violation of OPSEC with no upside. The federalists and anti-federalists used fake names in their written debates, were they cowards too?

Defender said...

Glenn Beck says there's a one-to-one correlation between cities tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and cutting essential services such as police and teachers, and those cities being "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants. And with those cities being Democrat strongholds for 50 to 80 years.
Hard to get tax money from people who work for cash and live 12 in a two-bedroom apartment, so no official address for 10 of them.
With ObamAmnesty, every city can be a sanctuary city. Not enough dead people are voting for the socialists anymore, apparently.

Dennis308 said...

To Anon;

Sir you make a good argument with the Federalists and
Anti-Federalist Papers, almost.

There were men like Patric Henry, and John Adams who stood publicly and addressed there grievances to the Tyrant of England, So that violent confrontation could be avoided. Which is how I see this blog, A warning to the Tyrants that would be. And I will continue to place my name with my comments, Let others follow their own heart.

And I can see that we will in all probability not agree on what is Trespass.

And that´s ok I am sure the men that came before us did not agree upon many things but where able to found the nation, that was the beakon on the hill for generation to follow their passing.

Dennis
III
Texas