Aha. I have finally come across the origin of the misunderstood notion of what has come to be known as 'anchor babies' - that is, children born in this country of illegal aliens, and 'thereby' given U.S. citizenship, and thus helping said families to stay here. Apparently Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, in a footnote to a 1982 Supreme Court opinion, claimed that the children born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens.
Wrong. And not only wrong. but
Poppycock.
1. That 'opinion' (and that is all that it is. At best. And sedition at worst) is based on the 14th Amendment. Which actually says:
"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 emphasis)
Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries; being here illegally.
And this take on the matter is also supported by the historical references by the persons behind the drafting of the 14th Amendment. Thus, as one source whose research on the matter I have come across, said:
"Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, said its grant of citizenship would not include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners or aliens."
'Oh well - close enough.'
Not.1
Other major examples of constitutional ramifications of this 'Oh well - close enough' category of things, aka swindle:
2. A 'natural born' citizen, according to the definitive tome of the day of the constitutional Framers in regards to such nation-building matters, and in relation specifically to the eligibility requirements that they delineated for the office of the presidency of the new United States, is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. (E. de Vattel, 'The Law of Nations,' Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212.) And to emphasize the point that there was, and is, an understood difference between a 'natural born' citizen' and a 'born' citizen, those learned gentlemen also gave us a neat clue as to their understood definition of the term, when Alexander Hamilton, in his role as one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal WAS SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, i.e., of needing to have been born "in the country" (or its equivalent, as in a diplomatic mission) "of parents who are citizens". (Which is what makes it 'natural,' for heaven's sakes.)
'Oh well - close enough.'
Not.2
3. The difference between 'residents' and 'citizens'. In our day, states like my home state of California appear to be attempting to make the two terms equivalent, for voting purposes; with such a state not requiring any proof of citizenship to vote, only your name - or 'a' name - and an address.
'Oh well - close enough.'
Not.
And the nation-hijackers - the erstwhile nation-hijackers - in this country are about to find out just how Not this sort of shit is.
As we get back to the rule of law in this country.
Before we transcend it. And move into
the kingdom of Light.
Not the kingdom of Darkness that said nation-hijackers have planned for it, and the world, via their totalitarian New World Order. Which plans to stomp a boot in the face of Humanity forever.
Not.
--
footnotes:
1 This also brings up the constitutional 'question' of 'original intent' vs. 'a living document'. But I won't get into that subject here. I'll just stick, here, with the basic facts. Which include the fact that if such a substantive change in the law as has been introduced by this 'broad construction' of the meaning of the citizenship term in the 14th Amendment is to be considered, it must be considered via the way built into the constitutional contract for such a substantive change in the meaning of the document:
by an amendment.
Not by legalistic legerdemain.
2 And so, as regards the Usurper, Barack Hussein Obama: He is to be arrested, and held for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason. And when he is found guilty - in a legitimate court of law; not one of these Maritime courts of law that are in position in this day and age. Which are now to be revoked, and American Common Law, or what is known as Natural Law, put in its place. As it should have been all along - all of the legislation that he signed into law, and all of the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he issued, and all of the appointments that he made - including to the SCOTUS, and inferior courts (and including all of the decisions that those appointees were involved crucially in) - go with him, into the trash bin. For it to be as though he had never occupied that office. For, he was never there legally.
And we get back to the rule of law in this country.
Temporarily. See below.
---=
...And too close:
from freedomoutpost.com: ‘WSJ Journalist Who Was Investigating Hillary Clinton Found Dead - Months Later Still No Autopsy Report’ - Tim Brown - September 11
(A WSJ journalist who had contacted the Russian Consulate General’s office in NYC to set up an interview in July with consular officials regarding an upcoming article he was preparing on HRC and her ties to Russia, esp. regarding a mysterious drug industry deal (and the Uranium One deal), never made it to the meeting. His death was reported by “unknown causes”…)
..
Thanks for this report, Tim. Important stuff.
Comes the revolution...
..and I don't mean the one that the NWO crowd is putting on us right now. I mean the one that will take. them. down.
No comments:
Post a Comment