I'm content to simply leave it to Ann Coulter to demolish the
morons at Fox News... and the half-wits within the RINO Ruling Class.
(*HEADACHE*)
* * *
Based on the hysterical flailing at Donald Trump — He’s a
buffoon! He’s a clown! He calls people names! He’s too conservative! He’s not
conservative enough! He won’t give details! His details won’t work! — I gather
certain Republicans are determined to drive him from the race.
These same Republicans never object to other candidates
who lack traditional presidential resumes — Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Newt
Gingrich and Herman Cain, to name a few.
I’m beginning to suspect it’s all
about Trump’s opposition to mass immigration from the Third World.
(*GRIN*)
Amid the hysteria, Trump is the only one speaking clearly
and logically, while his detractors keep making utter asses of themselves.
* CRUZ IS DOING OK...
(*SHRUG*)
By my count — so far — Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick
Perry and the entire Fox News commentariat are unfamiliar with a period of the
nation’s history known as “the Civil War.” They seem to believe that the
post-Civil War amendments were designed to ensure that the children of illegal
aliens would be citizens, “anchor babies,” who can then bring in the whole
family. (You wouldn’t want to break up families, would you?)
* ET TU, FIORINA...? (OH, WELL... AT LEAST - HOPEFULLY - SHE'S EDUCABLE.)
As FNC’s Bill O’Reilly "authoritatively" informed Donald
Trump on Tuesday night: “The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an
American!”
I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book,
Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on
Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”
(*SNORT*)
* SERIOUSLY... I BELIEVE SHE'S CORRECT ON THIS. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A LICK'S WORTH OF EVEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT O'REILLY READS... er... BOOKS. (SERIOUS BOOKS...)
* FOLKS... THIS IS WHY WHILE I USED TO WATCH O'REILLY... I NO LONGER DO. MY HEAD WOULD EXPLODE LISTENING TO THE STUPID THINGS THE MAN WOULD SAY! "HARVARD EDUCATED...?!?!" SERIOUSLY...?!?!
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Still, how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person —
imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually
in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I
really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with
passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.
Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario —
where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be
important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a
true scenario. Any scenario!
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!
Damn straight they should!
We’ve got to codify that.
YOU MEAN IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?
No, it isn’t, but that amendment will pass like wildfire!
* GOTTA FRIGGIN' LOVE COULTER!
It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1)
I didn’t; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?
“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night,
Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s
senior judicial analyst.
Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned
the Civil War — and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th
Amendment was to — I quote — “make certain that the former slaves and the
native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind
of prejudice there might be against them.”
Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was
ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian,
had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because
he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme
Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.
The “main object of the opening sentence of the
Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained — and not for the first or last time
— “was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of
opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free
negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black … should be
citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo
those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not
American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.
Of course it’s easy for "legal experts" to miss the welter
of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law
perplexingly titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”
(*ROFLMAO*)
Yeah, Trump’s the idiot.
(*SNORT*)
Or as Bream said to Napolitano
after his completely insane analysis, “I feel smarter just having been in your
presence.”
* AGAIN...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
The only reason the 14th Amendment doesn’t just come out
and say “black people” is that — despite our Constitution being the product of
vicious racists, who were dedicated to promoting white privilege and keeping
down the black man (Hat tip: Ta-Nehisi Coates) — the Constitution never, ever
mentions race.
Nonetheless, until Fox News’ "scholars" weighed in, there
was little confusion about the purpose of the 14th Amendment. It was to
“correct” — as Jack Nicholson said in “The Shining” — the Democrats, who
refused to acknowledge that they lost the Civil War and had to start treating
black people like citizens.
On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O’Reilly
haranguing Donald Trump: “YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU’RE
BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!” (No, Bill — there’s no period.
More like: “comma,” to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United
States “and of the state wherein they reside.”)
But on the other hand, we have Justice John Marshall
Harlan II, who despite not being a Fox News legal expert, was no slouch. He
wrote in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th
Amendment feared that:
“Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under
the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the
scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on
the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The
clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the
freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.”
It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim
Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal
immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision
was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.
* I RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING, FOLKS.
The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding
citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic —
the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs,
who will recall an incident in our nation’s history known as “the American
Revolution.”
Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography — as it
is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused
with this country. Thus, under the majority’s logic in Wong Kim Ark, children
born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens,
but British subjects.
As ridiculous as it was to grant citizenship to the
children born to legal immigrants under the 14th Amendment (which was about
what again? That’s right: slaves freed by the Civil War), that’s a whole order
of business different from allowing illegal aliens to sneak across the border,
drop a baby and say, Ha-ha! You didn’t catch me! My kid’s a citizen — while
Americans curse impotently under their breath.
As the Supreme Court said in Elk: “[N]o one can become a
citizen of a nation without its consent.”
The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a
liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982
Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil
are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the
Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.
Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to
conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that
Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the
United States.”
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant
citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be
flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”
In a statement so sane that Posner is NEVER going to be
invited on Fox News, he wrote: “We should not be encouraging foreigners to come
to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their
future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the
incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”
Forget the intricate jurisprudential dispute between Fox
News blowhards and the most-cited federal judge. How about basic common sense?
Citizenship in our nation is not a game of Red Rover with the Border Patrol!
The Constitution does not say otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment