BREAKING NEWS – TRUMP IS MOVING TO ELIMINATE ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP

Trump Vows to Terminate US Birthright Citizenship – Reports

US

Get short URL
 0  0  0

DETAILS FOLLOW:

‘ll leave it to the legal scholars to debate the fine points, but it’s no accident that one week before the midterms, President Trump says he wants to revoke birthright citizenship.

Sure, he did it in an interview with Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Swan of Axios for the premiere of the website’s string of HBO specials. And yes, Trump expressed surprise that the journalists, who had been digging into the issue, knew about his secret plan to move against the practice.

For Trump to speak of eliminating the practice where illegal immigrants can arrange to have babies in this country, and they automatically become American citizens, is very much part of his eleventh-hour push on immigration. At a time when he has been pounding away at the Central American caravan — at least until that narrative was interrupted by terror attacks — birthright citizenship is shrewdly targeted to his base.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump told Axios.

When pressed, he said that “you can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order … It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

The president made this argument: “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits.”

That is wrong. As the New York Times points out, “dozens of other countries, including Canada, Mexico and many others in the Western Hemisphere, grant automatic birthright citizenship, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports restricting immigration and whose work Mr. Trump’s advisers often cite.”

There is also the not insignificant matter of the 14th Amendment: “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.”

Some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to citizens and permanent legal residents.

What’s interesting to me is that the right fiercely objected when Barack Obama used his executive power to stop the deportation of the dreamers, saying this was a horrible abuse of presidential authority. They did have a point that Obama was trying to accomplish with a pen what he could not get passed into law, which is why the issue remains unresolved and Trump can threaten to expel younger immigrants unless Congress acts.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HIGHLIGHTED THE FIASCO OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. NOW THAT KAVANAUGH IS ON THE COURT WE CAN ADJUDICATE THE FIASCO THAT HAS BEEN UNTOUCHED FOR 15O YEARS.

PREVIOUS INFO ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT:

Two years after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into five military districts, where new state governments, based on universal manhood suffrage, were to be established. Thus began the period known as Radical Reconstruction, which saw the 14th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1866, ratified in July 1868. The amendment resolved pre-Civil War questions of African American citizenship by stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” The amendment then reaffirmed the privileges and rights of all citizens, and granted all these citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”

AN UN-GOING CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED – THE SUPREME COURT MUST ONCE AGAIN MUST STEP IN AND ADJUDICATE

the jurisdiction thereof.”

Overwhelming evidence against the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” or “not subject to any foreign power” as reaffirming the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth to aliens can be found following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1867 George Helm Yeaman, United States Minister to Denmark, in his well received treatise on allegiance and citizenship, which was presented to Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers).

Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct.

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS BLOG

ILLEGALS HURT BLACKS – THIS IS A START – WILL THE MOVEMENT HEAD EAST

The Latino/Hispanic invasion continues without a word from major Black organisations. Where is the leadership, where is the Black Caucus, where is the NAACP? The influx of illegals from Latin America during the past three decades has marginalized the Black community. No longer are they a force to be reckoned with in the Democrat party, their power succeeded to the Latino/Hispanic cabal. All of this was done under the cover of racism. The Black leaders never realized or even if they did, none spoke out against this invasion. They were taken for granted that equal rights meant for all, even those with no gripe. According to latest estimates, there are 35,000,000 Hispanics residing in the USA, this includes Mexican, Cubans, Puerto Ricans and those from other countries; this is almost equivalent to 36,000,000 Blacks or those who are African American. The Blacks are now on the threshold of being marginalized.

Blacks have been clamoring for their rights ever since the founding, but the major thrust began after the Civil Rights bill of 1960 became law, this was subsequent to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 but preceded the 1964 and 1965 Acts. Since then Blacks have made great strides, however monies that were initially intended for them were side tracked to the Hispanic community. Bilingual education became paramount. Instead of the focus helping Black children in their childhood years funds became diverted. But now a new element has swallowed up more funds initially intended for Blacks. We are talking about bringing in refugees from foreign lands with a history of being anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. However, to ascertain the full impact one must look at the cost. And that cost to integrate these foreigners will run into the trillions.

 

(click)Preferences for such people are entirely legal. The federal government’s definition of “Hispanic” for both the census and affirmative action guidelines is, “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Since preferences apply “regardless of race,” a person qualifies for affirmative action even if every one of his Latin American ancestors was a white slave owner. And slavery was much more brutal in Latin America than in British North America.

In the first two decades of affirmative action (the 1960s and 1970s) its rationale was to redress the effects of slavery and post-slavery anti-black discrimination. During this period, “black” and “minority” were used interchangeably, and arguments about affirmative action were about whether past anti-black discrimination justified present discrimination preferences

At the beginning of the 1960s, when white Americans tried to come to terms with the legacy of slavery, unelected government bureaucrats included Hispanics in the same “minority” category as blacks. Neither the public nor Congress discussed or even noticed this bizarre categorization because Hispanics were then such a small percentage of the population. Minority status, in turn, resulted in relabeling Hispanics as deserving non-whites and generating a myth that Hispanics had suffered the same type of discrimination as Blacks.

So where do we stand today. A reminder that Blacks deserve their due, the Hispanics do not. Blacks fought valiantly in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Not to say that natural born Hispanics did not, but they were not discriminated against, they were not prevented to vote, they were not enslaved.

Click here for “National Council of la Raza” Effectively this socialist organization’s philosophy is simple, “take from the rich give to the poor, demand placement for Latinos in jobs in the name of diversity when a more qualified person (white in most cases) has the better credentials and last but not least, fight for the right of illegal aliens to not only stay in the United States, but to give them free everything.

Click here for Jorge Ramos quipping that there is no invasion of the United States.

“There is no invasion. No one is invading the United States,” Mr. Ramos said. “Mexicans are not invading the United States. The undocumented population has remained stable at about 11 million for the last decade. So those are the positive things. The negative is that this is the ‘Trump effect.’ This is created because of the policies of fear, and xenophobia and cruelty.”

The Univision star sent a different message on Fox News just one day earlier. Mr. Ramos told told Tucker Carlson on March 8 that America, for all intents and purposes, belongs to anyone who crosses the border — legally or illegally.

So we call for the BLACK LEADERS to break away from the past PARADIGM and look to the future where your voice will be heard; if you don’t do it now, you will never have a voice again. Please shout as loud as you can, your future is at stake. Your community has gone in reverse, progress is at the very least a standstill.  The marauding bands of Hispanic/Latino leaders have usurped your hard work and no pun intended, “BLACKENED YOUR LEGACY.”

CHRIS CHRISTIE – ILLEGALS “SHOULD HAVE PATH TO CITIZENSHIP”

Governor Christie P1050726 has taken a left turn off the same bridge Ted Kennedy failed to negotiate at Chappaquiddick. Christie wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens; this is a non starter for those who believe in the law of the land.

What Christie fails to understand is that these illegals have generated 30 million anchor babies who are citizens. Don’t forget that these, mostly Hispanics, have all the rights of any other citizen. But the question remains for Christie, why advocate for citizenship when in fact these illegal “undocumented aliens” are allowed to stay here without any penalty. The probability of them being deported is colder than absolute zero.

FORGET SANCTUARY CITY TRY SANCTUARY COUNTRY

In light of Donald Trump’s disparaging remarks regarding illegal immigrants, either Mexican or Latin American, the news has bared him out. Exhibit 1 was the killing in San Francisco, exhibit 2 is the illegal activity of criminal license applications in New Mexico. But no subject is without controversy, the progressive politician who condoned the sanctuary city and provided fodder by inviting more illegals into the country – think Obama not enforcing the borders – leading to the United States becoming a sanctuary country;  mass violations of the law have resulted.

Hypocrites at best, lying swine at worst. Presidential contender and former Secretary of Hate Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer are the worst of the worst. However it even gets worse as the Obama administration’s talking puppet Josh Ernest blames the Republicans for not passing immigration reform. That is beyond the pale. More diatribe coming from the White House is expected. Loretta Lynch is not doing her job by enforcing the law. Wait for more killings, rapings and thefts by illegals. This controversy is not over.

A high-profile case in 2012 saw five Albuquerque residents federally indicted in a multi-state license distribution scheme. Federal investigators said 30 people from five states were involved in the ring that provided false documents to illegal immigrants who had resided in South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia to fraudulently obtain 164 New Mexico driver’s licenses.