Thread: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Ameri

I wove you Mamie... I am going to plagerize the whole thing. That should bring the storm troopers I am dealing with right back here for annilation. Err.. or something.

Thank you!!

Originally Posted by shaw

I wove you Mamie... I am going to plagerize the whole thing. That should bring the storm troopers I am dealing with right back here for annilation. Err.. or something.

Thank you!!

that was from the message board that I gave the link ...

have you noticed that all the problems we are having with the government goes back to the 'unCivil War' .... then as now, were a powerful group of people wanting to destroy our 'republican form of government.'

the goal of communism is to create a 'classless' and 'stateless' society -- our country being overthrown by millions of "illegal aliens" creates a class of people that are "not citizens"

it seems the goal of our government -- Congress and the Supreme Court -- is to incorporate the world

no wonder House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the lone ranger in his fight against the courts, they have the same objective as Congress

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are
they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United
States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

we make treaties with Mexico too

Oooh. I am out again... and I am not even sick. Oooh. Anyway..
=================

In reading Darlenes' post, you have to wonder. I have suggested the open Mexican Checkbook had a lot to do with it. But some of the garbage that has arrived leaves me damned cold. Very not feeling good. So... I don't know. I am not going to say.. not in this life... I am going to say.. I don't know. If the southern border is not a massive entry way to terrorist, there is not ANY entryway to terrorism. What is going on?
================
One Reporter's Opinion - Anchor Babies
George Putnam
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2417.shtml
Saturday, July 31, 2004

It is this reporter's opinion that we should take note of American citizenship amendment H.J. RES. 42. This piece of legislation proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. to deny U.S. citizenship to individuals born in the U.S., and to parents who are neither U.S. citizens or persons who owe permanent allegiance to the U.S.
My friend Frosty Wooldridge - teacher and author, who has bicycled 100,000 miles around the globe studying overpopulation - is concerned with the half million "anchor babies" who annually become citizens in California. He and Dr. Madeleine Cosman charge that Congress is taking Americans for a ride, and that at least 70 percent of the 2,500 babies born in one California general maternity ward were from illegal aliens. They say that that number has exploded with over 3 million illegal aliens residing in California.
At least 300,000 "anchor babies" are arriving in California annually. The situation has become absolutely ridiculous. Here are two examples of the insanity going on in our courts today:
Recently lawyers for a deported Mexican woman who was eight months pregnant were seeking her return to the U.S. to protect her unborn baby's health. They maintain that under federal law the fetus is a viable human being and thus may be eligible for citizenship rights.
A district court judge in Kansas City recently approved a stay of deportation for a pregnant Mexican woman after raising, among other concerns, the question of whether her fetus could be considered a U.S. citizen.
Where are we going? What are we doing?
(I would like to know also! You get the feeling Mexico has purchased the votes of a lot opeople in Congress. That, or the patriotism jive is patriotism jive.)

Frosty Wooldridge says it's time to take another look at the overall subject of "anchor babies." He points to Ireland and notes that that nation, also facing an "anchor baby" invasion, got it right. It was happening there; children born to foreign parents in Dublin maternity hospitals accounted for 25 percent of total births in one year. People had come to Ireland to have an Irish child and therefore Irish citizenship.

Ireland was experiencing the same abuse of their immigration laws as the U.S. so they did something about it. In January 2003 the Irish Supreme Court ruled in a landmark decision that immigrant parents of an Irish born child could be deported. It was the first reversal of Ireland's liberal policy of granting residency and possibly citizenship to anyone who had a baby in Ireland, including illegal aliens.
--------------------------------------
Anchor Babies: Is Citizenship an Entitled Birthright?

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE ... _FAIR.html
"In 1994, Alma Meza Guitierrez travelled hundreds of miles with her three year old son through Mexico and across the U.S. border in order to reach her aunt and uncle's small apartment in San Diego. She lives in squalid conditions in the apartment's kitchen, she does not speak English and has little prospects for employment. Why would a 20-year-old mother of one give up her life in Mexico to endure such circumstances? Alma is pregnant and she, like thousands of other women who enter the United States illegally each year, knows that giving birth in the U.S. means her child will be an "anchor baby" and granted U.S. citizenship. For Alma, that means her child will immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state and local benefit programs.
In addition, when Alma's child turns 21, he can sponsor the immigration of other members of the Guitierrez clan."

=========================
Anchor Babies: born in the USA - Enormous taxpayer costs

Article by Stephany Gabbard and Frosty Wooldridge
July 9, 2004
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/article ... ul09b.html
Published on MICHnews.com

The French economist Frederic Bastiat said, "The unseen is more expensive than the seen." In Stockton, California, the Silverio Family was featured in the Wall Street Journal in 2003. They were fruit pickers who arrived illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico in 1997. The wife, Felipa had three kids, but popped an anchor baby named Flor. The child was premature and spent three months in a neonatal incubator at a cost to the San Joaquin Hospital of over $300,000.00. They conceived another, Christian. The second baby made them eligible for $1,000 per month welfare. Because Flor is disabled, she receives $600.00 monthly for asthma. Although the illegal aliens made $18,000.00 annually picking fruit, they collected $12,000.00 of your tax dollars for their anchor babies. One night the father, Cristobal crashed his van. He had no license or insurance. Taxpayers paid for all hospital bills. That’s why 77 hospitals in border states were going bankrupt in 2003, but Senator John McCain wrote a rider into the Medicaid Bill for $1.4 billion of your tax dollars. It passed. Not to finish the spending spree on these anchor babies, the children attend California schools at a cost of $7,000.00 per year over and above what their parents pay in taxes. The cost for all five of their children for one school year exceeds $35,000.00 times 18 years for a grand taxpayer total of $630,000.00. This is only one family. No wonder California is $38 billion in debt.

----------------------------

Frosty Wooldridge does an excellent job of detailing this ugly business. He will provide you with samples of cost.. thoughts about the processes. I want to say this: Mexico is corrupt as hell. If they clean up their act, they will be able to provide what those 21 year old mothers want: lives for their children and families. But as long as they can send their poor to the United States... they will... because that is the nature of a corruption and crime in Mexico. Make Mexico take care of its people... make Congress do the right thing!
================
It may be that there are areas of this country that are bound to welfare. I have not seen that.. don't know where such is, and in the implied threat in the garbage up above.. links have not been supplied. La Raza claims to be people of their word... and they very decidedly told the world that the white folks had to be killed. Since they got Gonzalez nominated and in the position of Attorney General, that retoric has gone way down. It will be back up though. Anchor babies are expensive, and I would bet a bunch the AT has a hand in preventing any effort we make to stop this criminal fraud.
=============================


I want to suggest you copy the post and send it to your representivie ans ask him to close the loop. Vote to exclude the anchor babies, or support any legislation that excludes that provision of the law that anchor babies.

Post cards cost a quarter... send a post card and tell them to stop the hundreds of millions going to the fraud of Anchor Babies.

Recently lawyers for a deported Mexican woman who was eight months pregnant were seeking her return to the U.S. to protect her unborn baby's health. They maintain that under federal law the fetus is a viable human being and thus may be eligible for citizenship rights.
A district court judge in Kansas City recently approved a stay of deportation for a pregnant Mexican woman after raising, among other concerns, the question of whether her fetus could be considered a U.S. citizen. Where are we going? What are we doing?

for abortion purposes the 'fetus' of an American citizen has no rights to "life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness" under OUR Constitution BUT a 'fetus' of an illegal alien is considered a U.S. Citizen? what federal law is that

..

Court backs immigrants in job lawsuit

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday March 8, 2005

The Supreme Court yesterday let stand a lower court ruling that a California company could not inquire about the immigration status of a group of Hispanic and Southeast Asian women who filed a lawsuit against the firm for job discrimination.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, had agreed with a federal magistrate who barred the questioning, saying many of the millions of illegal aliens now in the country were reluctant to report discriminatory employment practices.
"Granting employers the right to inquire into workers' immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action," wrote Judge Reinhardt, named to the bench in 1980 by President Carter.


Note: Judge Stephen Reinhardt, was the same judge in the 9th circuit that rule the pledge of allegiance 'unconstitutional.' Judge Reinhardt is married to Ramona Ripston, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the ACLU.

â€â€

I apologize, I just can't wrap my brain around this one

Recently lawyers for a deported Mexican woman who was eight months pregnant were seeking her return to the U.S. to protect her unborn baby's health. They maintain that under federal law the fetus is a viable human being and thus may be eligible for citizenship rights.
A district court judge in Kansas City recently approved a stay of deportation for a pregnant Mexican woman after raising, among other concerns, the question of whether her fetus could be considered a U.S. citizen. Where are we going? What are we doing?

under the 14th Amendment "Section 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."

are they trying to say now that conception in the United States entitles an unborn to citizenship? Somebody please help me out here

You were on the right track with:

... this amendment is actually 'unconstitutional' because it was not propertly ratified ... it is "pretend legislation" (my bold)

and:

The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void... (my bold)

'nuff said- so why come back and reference it:

under the 14th Amendment "Section 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." (my italic-underline)

are they trying to say now that conception in the United States entitles an unborn to citizenship? Somebody please help me out here

like it is anything but invalid, null and void?

GREAT WORK AUNT B and MAMIE!!

(The Supreme Court's kind of a wimpy-ass group aren't they?)

We need to build a new Supreme Court Building in Minuteman Land, Arizona.....you know, to help Judges with their "perspective"!

It would save alot of time, too. ACLU could interview with the TV Cameras and call everyone a racist in the morning......and then trot their little briefs right over to the Supremes in the afternoon.

"Aint No Mountain High Enough"