by John Hill
Stand With Arizona
We have covered the disgraceful sham of “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship for a long time – illegal aliens using America’s current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to obtain citizenship for their illegal babies – just by getting inside our borders prior to the birth.
You have seen the Mexican women who come across the Rio Grande in labor, to have babies in Texas hospitals. Like this woman, who did just that, failed to pay her hospital bill, and just “doesn’t understand the anger” of Americans at her willful disregard for our laws or her personal responsiblities…
Then we showed you a private home in L.A., converted to a birthing center where Chinese women are brought in at 8- or 9-months pregnant, to give birth to “U.S. Citizens” – so-called “birth tourism” – in case they one day need to mooch off American welfare.
Now comes a case that demonstrates more than any before it, the abject folly of providing citizenship to the offspring of these international grifters. A woman who flew 9 months pregnant – from the Philippines, and who admits she wanted to give birth in America so her child would be given U.S. Citizenship, instead had her baby in-flight. It appears he was born in international airspace. But this woman, Aida Alamillo, claims that if she had instead given birth at her first scheduled stop of San Franscisco, that the baby would have been born in a hospital there, and thus should be considered a “citizen” of the U.S.
It was her apparent intent to live with her sister in Massachussetts and collect Social Security. When she arrived at the San Francisco hospital, she reportedly asked for “Social Security”, which – if true – speaks volumes about the shocking sense of entitlement of foreign nationals towards the U.S.
Here is one report where the Fox Boston staff discuss most of the details of this farce…
How ridicuous is this entire debate? Is this what the American people want: to see a mockery made of our laws? To see foreign nationals manipulating our system to get their kids easy citizenship, and thus a foothold for themselves in the U.S.? One wonders if this woman had heard about Obama’s recent backdoor amnesty decree which tels ICE that women such as this can NEVER be deported. Word travels fast in such circles.
This is a citizen of the Philippines, not America, and her child should not be an American citizen. And this is not what the architects of the 14th Amendment intended.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 specifically to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to Blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
But yet its “jurisdiction clause” was made crystal clear. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of this clause by writing:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States….”
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that a foreign visitor and/or illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. And thus that child is not a U.S. citizen.
But this question has never been definitely settled by a Supreme Court ruling, and thus we have suffered a disastrous status quo of hundreds of thousands of “anchor babies” being born in the U.S. every single year, and being handed a citizenship they do not deserve, and which the architects of the 14th Amendment specifically designed it to prevent.
60,000 such babies are born every year in Dallas’ Parkland Memorial Hospital, where a staggering 70% of their total births are anchor babies! And like the case of the Mexican woman in the video above who failed to pay her hospital bill, hospitals across America are being bankrupted by unpaid bills of these irresponsible “anchor moms.” In California alone, hospitals have annual losses of $1.25 billion from unpaid bills of illegal aliens, and hundreds of hospitals have closed as a result.
Perhaps that’s why, in 1993, before La Raza took over the Democratic Party, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) actually sponsored legislation to change U.S. immigration law to require that at least one parent had to be an American citizen before the child could be considered the same. As Sen. Reid so aptly put it, “no sane nation” would offer birthright citizenship…
But Reid, like Obama, is now part of a Democrat Party more than willing to subvert the rule of law to steal votes via amnesty. And so by 2010 he had changed his tune, saying that Republicans had “either taken leave of their senses or their principles” when they proposed an almost identical change as he himself proposed.
America has taken leave of its senses on immigration for decades. It is time to sober up and straighten out. There is an answer to the “anchor baby” madness. The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (H.R. 140), introduced by Reps. Steve King (R-IA), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Gary Miller (R-CA), and Rob Woodall (R-GA). The bill, which has a solid legal basis, would “amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Congress is well within its right to define what “jurisdiction” is once and for all, without the need to repeal or replace the 14th Amendment. This is the best available option to end this outrageous perversion of law once and for all.
ACT NOW! Call your Representative and ask that they co-sponsor or support H.R. 140 and demand it be given the Judiciary Committee vote it deserves:
Find your elected officials HERE, or direct-message email your House Rep. HERE.
Once we add sponsors we can build a groundswell of momentum on social media and with protests to force a vote on this critical issue, and make it a powerful message for the 2012 elections.
PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION of $10.70 to Stand With Arizona in honor of SB1070, to help us continue to fight against illegal alien amnesty and push for Arizona-style enforcement laws nationwide: DONATE link. Thank you. |
It is in plain English, all you have to do is properly break down the sentence.
“This will not, of course, include
1. Persons born the the US who are foriegners.
2. Persons born in the US who are alien.
3. Persons born in the US who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the US.
What did they think all those commas were for? They are there to separate each category into a specific set. This is not rocket science, it is English. No ruling has been made because it says it all. People are deliberately and criminally misusing it, and our government is allowing it.
Palin 2012!!!
Faith, you are addressing the statement of Senator and not the text of the 14th Amendment. The relevant portion of the Amendment is as follows:
“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.”
Thus, if you take out all those confusing periods, all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.
Simple, isn’t it.
Note also, that the 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868, almost two years after the good senator’s comments.
Commas, that is.
Faith,
Here’s what the SCOTUS said when some litigants claimed that the 14th Amendment did not apply to “illegal aliens:”
Appellants argue at the
outset that undocumented aliens, because of
their immigration status, are not “persons
within the jurisdiction” of the State of
Texas, and that they therefore have no right
to the equal protection of Texas law. We
reject this argument. Whatever his status
under the immigration laws, an alien is
surely a “person” in any ordinary sense of
that term. Aliens, even aliens whose
presence in this country is unlawful, have
long been recognized as “persons”
guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).
There you have it. They are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” You now have two alternatives. The first is to get the SCOTUS to change its views, or pass a constitutional amendment.
The same SCOTUS denies personhood to developing pre-natal infants.
The same SCOTUS neglected in that ruling to uphold the rights of natural born Americans, naturalized citizens and legal immigrants-greencard holders.
Would SCOTUS uphold my rights, should any attorney have the guts to bring the attempt on my life by Roosevelt Island Public “Safety” thugs in the pay of New York State to their attention?
It’s very clear that illegals have more rights than this citizen. Where that leaves SCOTUS is a matter worth debate. Dereliction of duty comes to mind. Sad days, America.
Dara,
Forbes recently came out with an article about this and said (and I agree) that it’s not a question of immigration so much as it is a question of benefits that our country grants to people. We really need to start looking at the benefits side of the equation.
Having said that, I simply related what the Supreme Court has ruled. People who are frustrated with U.S. immigration policies need to focus on Congress and get Congress to do something. You and I may disagree on what needs to be done, but I think we can agree that this is an issue that Congress should address. for me, I think it foolish to think that we can deport 12 million people both practically and economically. That being the case, I do not think the answer is to be sufficiently cruel to immigrants that they will self deport. First, that is immoral. We take better care of stray animals. Secondly, such an approach has severe consequences on American children. Third, that approach is self defeating. We push parents into a greater economic abyss and now the government is providing more free lunch, WIC and other benefits. These folks would rather take care of themselves. Let’s do something sane here.
It is in plain English, all you have to do is properly break down the sentence.
“This will not, of course, include
1. Persons born the the US who are foriegners.
2. Persons born in the US who are alien.
3. Persons born in the US who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the US.
What did they think all those commas were for? They are there to separate each category into a specific set. This is not rocket science, it is English. No ruling has been made because it says it all. People are deliberately and criminally misusing it, and our government is allowing it.
Palin 2012!!! Representing the Heart of AMERICA!!!
everyone that reads this needs to get involved. Call/write/fax your congressmen/woman. If enough of us do that, they will have to listen.
Ok, I have a deterent. Children born in this country are citizens, there is no denying that. But it DOES NOT make the mother or father a citizen. The child can stay, with legal relatives if they are here, if not as part of our system possibly adoption. The parents however MUST be deported WITHOUT the US Citizen child!
Hellooo.. do you think that when a person is detained for months before being deported ice stops and picks the kids? the kids get put into foster care and if the parent is still in detention or doesnt have the money to pay the courts to get their kids out of foster care and sent to them.. after 1 year they lose their parental rights.
Lady, what you suggest, often happens. The sole support of these young Americans are deported and often the parents are compelled to leave their children behind to become wards of the state. The other alternative is that they are taken to a foreign country where they are compelled to live in circumstances that would mandate their removal from home by CPS were they actually living in the US. To me, neither is a good way to treat young Americans who have as much the right to be here and to enjoy the freedoms of the U.S. as your children (and any American child) do(es).
DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGAL WOMAN AND HER CHILD BACK TO MEXICO ! THE LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED AT ONCE !! THIS KIND OF SHIT HAS TO STOP !
i think people need to grow up and these illigal immagrants diserve the right to be where ever they want to be regardless to there status.it is racial no matter which way you look at it.so what there illegal.there still gods people as much as we are.i dont understand why there is so much fighting over them being here if it didnt cost so much they wouldnt have a problem getting legal documents.they bleed just like us and it is alot cheaper for us to goto other countries but it cost too much for them to get legal here and my opinion they should be able to stay here if they want to.try living in there shoes for 1 day
it isnt racial…..and please make an effort to learn how to spell before you post again
The Fourteen Amendment reads in FULL:
“Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights
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.
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.
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.
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.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
NO where is Senator Jacob Howard (of 1866) comments part of the Fourteen Amendment! Therefore, there is NO legal way, currently, to bar anyone who has come come here from having their baby and claiming US Citizenship for the baby.
Read your constitution for yourself from the U.S. Constitution and not the interpretation of someone else of the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, since a foreign based U.S. Embassy is considered American soil regardless of where it is, anyone who gives birth inside or on the grounds of the U.S. Embassy could, in theory, have a case for claiming U.S. Citizenship for the baby. Think about that one…
If the wife of the Mexican Ambassador gave birth this week near the U.N. in NYC, there is no question the child would not be an American citizen. She and he child are citizens of Mexico, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There is no difference between her and the woman in the video above, who came across the Rio Grande with less than 24 hours before she gave birth. she is a Mexican. Her child is Mexican. Period. Congress needs to make this clear to the obtuse and far-left judges that have muddled the issue for decades.
,,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,,,, can we get a clear legal definition of that? im no lawyer, but wouldn’t a phillipino woman be subject to the jurisiction of the phillipine islands not the US? she falls under our jurisdiction, for criminal purposes, while visiting but falls under the phillipine government for purposes of naturalization?? thats how i see it. am i wrong or has that never been clarified?
Nope, see my post above. The Supreme Court says that illegal aliens are subject to the Jurisdiction of the U.S. period, end of story.
What a racist shitty piece that was. I want the 3 minutes it took me to read it back.
Can you say invasion???
Obama you are not a American because you don’t stick up for us Americans .
It is time to round all the Illegals up and run them back to were they come from . Put up tents in every state and arrest them all and then send them back and take there nice cars and sell them to pay there bills
@ John Hill – I agree on the facts and support a return to what the 1993 version of Harry Reid considered sanity. However, to be taken seriously you need to correct the error in fact regarding the number of births that Dallas’ Parkland Hospital has in a year. It is not 60,000 but 16,000. The 70% illegal figure is correct.
If we are going to defeat the enemies of the USA it is critical that we don’t use the tactics of our opposition. That is we need to keep our facts accurate and true so that it is plain to any neutral party who is correct and who exaggerates the facts by bending them in their favor.
They say they are the 99%, we say we are the 53%. It speaks for itself. Who is getting out the truth? It must be us. We are right. We are sane. We want all men & women of goodwill to prosper.
After examine a number of of the weblog posts in your website now, and I truly like your method of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site checklist and will likely be checking back soon. Pls check out my site as properly and let me know what you think.
There are definitely plenty of particulars like that to take into consideration. That could be a nice point to carry up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one you bring up where an important factor will be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, however I’m positive that your job is clearly identified as a good game. Both boys and girls really feel the affect of just a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.