Thread: Justice Brennan responsible for anchor babies...

Justice Brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies

Posted: August 04, 2010
6:19 pm Eastern
© 2010 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, 189.

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."

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.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187785

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.)

Thanks for the article hardline. However this is a lousy article. Where is the background concerning the case? What did the case involve?

The justice's statement seems vague and incomplete. Why?

Brennan didn't do it alone, he was just confirming what Bureacrats and liberals had been "assuming" since the 1960's, that illegal alien babies were US citizens and thus eligable for every welfare and Medicaid program.

Originally Posted by roundabout

Thanks for the article hardline. However this is a lousy article. Where is the background concerning the case? What did the case involve?

The justice's statement seems vague and incomplete. Why?

The case decided that States had to educate illegal alien minors (brought here, not born here), based on the equal protection clause which forbids states to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.â€

But as long as they are in power they will keep getting away with this charade.

Thank You Bowman. That was what I was looking for, the charades.

It just seems to me, beyond belief, that with as much evidence and support that challenges how the 14th ammendment has been interpreted, distorted, and then ultimately evolved into a counterfeit literal gateway, aka "illegal immigration rights". It is then supposedly supported constitutionly by literal political winds, wands, and wackos. Anti-illegal immigration attorneys supporting legislation to curb this idiocy, cannot prepare convincing irrefutable legal briefs to put this corruption to rest for good?....This is nuts.

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.)

Another implementation of the north american union..even back then.

When you look at the dollar as a world reserve currency, that currency being sold as debt to the nations around the world, what policies concerning immigration are tethered to that sale of dollar denominated debt?

This is just conjecture on my part, but, immigration tied to debt sales, brings in immigrants that will set up businesses here and helps the flow of the currency to flow back and forth.

What chance has the Constitution when put up against the sales of dollars?

Welcome to the International Bazaar. JMO

Originally Posted by roundabout

When you look at the dollar as a world reserve currency, that currency being sold as debt to the nations around the world, what policies concerning immigration are tethered to that sale of dollar denominated debt?

This is just conjecture on my part, but, immigration tied to debt sales, brings in immigrants that will set up businesses here and helps the flow of the currency to flow back and forth.

What chance has the Constitution when put up against the sales of dollars?

Welcome to the International Bazaar. JMO

Good Point.

Originally Posted by roundabout

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.)

Thanks for the article hardline. However this is a lousy article. Where is the background concerning the case? What did the case involve?

The justice's statement seems vague and incomplete. Why?

Oh come on...can't you help me out just a little!!!!