The Anchor Baby Snivel

F

Flanders

Verified User
Democrat parasites never stop whining that the American people will not tolerate deporting millions of illegal aliens. The sniveling that annoys me the most is the one that says “Deporting anchor babies is not the kind of country we are.”

FACT CHECK: Not rewarding illegal aliens regardless of how they got here is exactly the kind of country this is.


On Birthright Citizenship

While Trump denounces birthright citizenship, he has yet to sign the executive order ending the policy which he vowed to sign in October of last year.

The U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they “anchor” their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. when they are granted immediate birthright citizenship.


​
XXXXX
​


The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea. Trump promised last year to end birthright citizenship through executive action, but the order has yet to be revealed or signed.


​
Catch and Release, Birthright Citizenship, Sanctuary Cities Continue Unaltered Despite Trump Opposition
by John Binder
3 Mar 2019

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-continue-unaltered-despite-trump-opposition/
​

I will begin with a reminder: Only in America can parasites sue.

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State’s College Tuition Policy
By Candice Leigh Helfand
November 2, 2011 9:29 AM

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2011/11/0...e-florida-over-states-college-tuition-policy/
​

The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans before, or after, they squat and drop on American soil, nor are their babies American.

Few Americans think about presidential eligibility requirements should anchor babies get a path to citizenship.

Admittedly, no one expects a flood of anchor babies running for the presidency in the near future, but it is not hard to image a presidential eligibility mess somewhere down the road. The next mess will not take as long as the time it took between Chester A. Arthur’s presidency, 1881 to 1885, and Obama’s.

NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat was American on his mother’s side. His presidential eligibility is another matter.

A casual approach to the eligibility clause prevailed after Arthur beat the system. It was understood that an ineligible person in the presidential line of succession would not become president should the situation arise. To my way of thinking, no one belongs in the line of succession if they are ineligible. Losing the services of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Mitch McConnell’s wife, et al. would not be a great loss to the country.

Also, there was no great rush to strictly enforce the eligibility clause after Arthur because no one thought he hated America. Not so with Obama. The next ineligible, America-hating, president will build upon every betrayal the sewer rat got away with. That is not to say that an eligible president will not do it, too. Bill Clinton is a case in point, but he only dreamed about executing the betrayals Obama got away with.

Incidentally, When I was young I thought that anyone born under the American flag was automatically a U.S. citizen even if the birth took place on a ship at sea flying the American flag. I do not know where I got that idea, but I never gave it much thought. Illegal immigration was not a problem in the 1940s and ‘50s. Like most Americans I believed the federal government would protect this country’s borders. I learned the truth about the federal government in recent years as well as coming to a better understanding of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment and the Eligibility Clause in the Constitution.

The fact is, anchor babies are not citizens of the United States, and the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to babies born on American soil.


​
CNN Debate Fails On 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
Douglas V. Gibbs Wednesday, October 19, 2011

https://canadafreepress.com/article/cnn-debate-fails-on-14th-amendments-citizenship-clause



​
XXXXX
​


Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/06/myth-13-anchor-babies-are-american.html
​

Anchor Babies were used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right. They are not Americans at birth.

While Trump denounces birthright citizenship, he has yet to sign the executive order ending the policy which he vowed to sign in October of last year.
​

The amnesty crowd is trying for a compromise because they know they are backing a loser. The story is: Let the anchor babies who were born here stay with THEIR RELATIVES, but close the loophole in the future. That is an incremental trap in the kind of country Democrats live in.

Here is one compromise the open-borders crowd will never agree to:

Deport the parents along with illegal alien relatives, but let the children stay here until they turn 18 years old when they can be deported. Families will then be reunited in their own country. Do it that way so the blame falls on their parents for breaking the law instead of letting the filthy sneaks in Congress lay a guilt trip on Americans.

Parenthetically, the halfwits on the Supreme Court could not figure out the Constitution when pregnant illegal aliens get here two minutes before their water breaks; so what in hell are they going to do with this one?

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies
JP Carroll
National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter
9:08 PM 10/07/2016

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/american-surrogates-are-giving-birth-to-anchor-babies
​

Surrogate baby machines is expensive; so selling forged birth certificates became a cottage industry.

Regardless of what happens to the economy after illegal aliens are deported, Americans will get their country back and be better off for it. Americans can work their way through economic downturns, but it is impossible if tens of millions of illegal aliens are here when the economy tanks as it always does.

Naturally, the lady who so admires Margaret Sanger chimed in:

“They’re called babies,” Hillary Rodham Clinton posted on Twitter.
​

Hillary’s twitter was a big mistake:


Hillary Clinton has no right to speak out on "Anchor babies" when she calls dismembered babies "fetuses". But if that is a favorite liberal word, maybe we should do what Mark Levins suggests and call them "anchor fetuses". That shouldn't upset them, right? Liberals don't get upset when fetuses are dissected. What's deportation compared to that?

Just remember it's all about language. They want to take away our ability to criticize these people who are stealing citizenship for themselves and their families. If we lose the ability to say what they are, if we are forced to call them "dreamers", we lose the battle.


​
August 21, 2015
If 'anchor babies' is too incendiary, how about 'anchor fetuses'?
By Newsmachete

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._too_incendiary_how_about_anchor_fetuses.html
​

Ann Coulter had it right before she dumped Trump. I especially enjoyed this:

Conservative firebrand and bestselling author Ann Coulter joined Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa Tuesday – and she delivered an epic smackdown of “speech Nazis” who ridiculed the GOP frontrunner for using the term “anchor baby.”

“Apparently liberals think ‘anchor baby’ isn’t pleasant sounding,” she said in a speech introducing Trump at the event. “They prefer words like ‘aborted baby.'”

She continued,“But I have an idea. How about anvil babies – because that’s what anchor babies are around the necks of the American taxpayer.”


​
Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown
On 'anchor babies': 'Maybe it'd be better to keep their mouths shut'
Published: 08/25/2015 at 9:18 PM

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/ann-coulter-joins-trump-rips-speech-nazis/
​

Freakazoids are so busy concentrating on killing babies they have no time for this one:

Now comes a whopper: much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue in Fitisemanu: whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission? The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left's immigration agenda.


​
XXXXX



​
Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States. The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe. The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship. The Court's decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.


​
July 11, 2018
It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship
By Brian Lonergan

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/its_time_to_reimagine_birthright_citizenship_.html
​

Tax dollars will serve a better purpose if it used to ship illegal alien mothers and their children back to their homelands.


'Anchor babies' cost taxpayers $2.4 billion annually
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 10/11/2018 @ 7:44 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/anchor-babies-cost-taxpayers-2-4-billion-annually/
​

Three cheers for Trump if he does it:


UZH5v1.gif

​


President Trump is planning to end birthright citizenship, calling the right for babies of noncitizens and illegal immigrants born in the U.S. to have citizenship “ridiculous.”

"How ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump told “Axios on HBO.” “It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end.


​
Trump Is Planning to End Birthright Citizenship Through Executive Order
Leah Barkoukis
Posted: Oct 30, 2018 6:45 AM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahb...anning-to-end-birthright-citizenship-n2533213
​

If possible, the next EO should end stack doll migration.

nesting-dolls.jpg

​

It is interesting that the highest paid network mouths are called anchors? QUESTION: If they are anchors what in hell are they anchoring? ANSWER: Their tax dollar salaries.

Media mouths voicing their opinions on overt Democrat networks are contractually required to speak out against everything that defends this country’s sovereignty, while most opinion mouths on PHONY FOX must camouflage their support for birthright citizenship.

Finally, Lady Ann’s piece is loaded with facts for anyone who is interested in learning why anchor babies are NOT American citizens:


Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies
by Ann Coulter
31 Oct 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/31/ann-coulter-the-true-history-of-millstone-babies/
​
 
Flanders said:
Democrat parasites never stop whining that the American people will not tolerate deporting millions of illegal aliens. The sniveling that annoys me the most is the one that says “Deporting anchor babies is not the kind of country we are.”

FACT CHECK: Not rewarding illegal aliens regardless of how they got here is exactly the kind of country this is.


On Birthright Citizenship

While Trump denounces birthright citizenship, he has yet to sign the executive order ending the policy which he vowed to sign in October of last year.

The U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they “anchor” their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. when they are granted immediate birthright citizenship.


​
XXXXX
​


The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea. Trump promised last year to end birthright citizenship through executive action, but the order has yet to be revealed or signed.


​
Catch and Release, Birthright Citizenship, Sanctuary Cities Continue Unaltered Despite Trump Opposition
by John Binder
3 Mar 2019

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-continue-unaltered-despite-trump-opposition/
​

I will begin with a reminder: Only in America can parasites sue.

Children of Illegal Immigrants Sue Florida Over State’s College Tuition Policy
By Candice Leigh Helfand
November 2, 2011 9:29 AM

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2011/11/0...e-florida-over-states-college-tuition-policy/
​

The mothers of anchor babies are not Americans before, or after, they squat and drop on American soil, nor are their babies American.

Few Americans think about presidential eligibility requirements should anchor babies get a path to citizenship.

Admittedly, no one expects a flood of anchor babies running for the presidency in the near future, but it is not hard to image a presidential eligibility mess somewhere down the road. The next mess will not take as long as the time it took between Chester A. Arthur’s presidency, 1881 to 1885, and Obama’s.

NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat was American on his mother’s side. His presidential eligibility is another matter.

A casual approach to the eligibility clause prevailed after Arthur beat the system. It was understood that an ineligible person in the presidential line of succession would not become president should the situation arise. To my way of thinking, no one belongs in the line of succession if they are ineligible. Losing the services of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Mitch McConnell’s wife, et al. would not be a great loss to the country.

Also, there was no great rush to strictly enforce the eligibility clause after Arthur because no one thought he hated America. Not so with Obama. The next ineligible, America-hating, president will build upon every betrayal the sewer rat got away with. That is not to say that an eligible president will not do it, too. Bill Clinton is a case in point, but he only dreamed about executing the betrayals Obama got away with.

Incidentally, When I was young I thought that anyone born under the American flag was automatically a U.S. citizen even if the birth took place on a ship at sea flying the American flag. I do not know where I got that idea, but I never gave it much thought. Illegal immigration was not a problem in the 1940s and ‘50s. Like most Americans I believed the federal government would protect this country’s borders. I learned the truth about the federal government in recent years as well as coming to a better understanding of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment and the Eligibility Clause in the Constitution.

The fact is, anchor babies are not citizens of the United States, and the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to babies born on American soil.


​
CNN Debate Fails On 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
Douglas V. Gibbs Wednesday, October 19, 2011

https://canadafreepress.com/article/cnn-debate-fails-on-14th-amendments-citizenship-clause



​
XXXXX
​


Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/06/myth-13-anchor-babies-are-american.html
​

Anchor Babies were used against Donald Trump during the campaign when he promised to send them home. He was right. They are not Americans at birth.

While Trump denounces birthright citizenship, he has yet to sign the executive order ending the policy which he vowed to sign in October of last year.
​

The amnesty crowd is trying for a compromise because they know they are backing a loser. The story is: Let the anchor babies who were born here stay with THEIR RELATIVES, but close the loophole in the future. That is an incremental trap in the kind of country Democrats live in.

Here is one compromise the open-borders crowd will never agree to:

Deport the parents along with illegal alien relatives, but let the children stay here until they turn 18 years old when they can be deported. Families will then be reunited in their own country. Do it that way so the blame falls on their parents for breaking the law instead of letting the filthy sneaks in Congress lay a guilt trip on Americans.

Parenthetically, the halfwits on the Supreme Court could not figure out the Constitution when pregnant illegal aliens get here two minutes before their water breaks; so what in hell are they going to do with this one?

American Surrogates Are Giving Birth To Anchor Babies
JP Carroll
National Security & Foreign Affairs Reporter
9:08 PM 10/07/2016

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/american-surrogates-are-giving-birth-to-anchor-babies
​

Surrogate baby machines is expensive; so selling forged birth certificates became a cottage industry.

Regardless of what happens to the economy after illegal aliens are deported, Americans will get their country back and be better off for it. Americans can work their way through economic downturns, but it is impossible if tens of millions of illegal aliens are here when the economy tanks as it always does.

Naturally, the lady who so admires Margaret Sanger chimed in:

“They’re called babies,” Hillary Rodham Clinton posted on Twitter.
​

Hillary’s twitter was a big mistake:


Hillary Clinton has no right to speak out on "Anchor babies" when she calls dismembered babies "fetuses". But if that is a favorite liberal word, maybe we should do what Mark Levins suggests and call them "anchor fetuses". That shouldn't upset them, right? Liberals don't get upset when fetuses are dissected. What's deportation compared to that?

Just remember it's all about language. They want to take away our ability to criticize these people who are stealing citizenship for themselves and their families. If we lose the ability to say what they are, if we are forced to call them "dreamers", we lose the battle.


​
August 21, 2015
If 'anchor babies' is too incendiary, how about 'anchor fetuses'?
By Newsmachete

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._too_incendiary_how_about_anchor_fetuses.html
​

Ann Coulter had it right before she dumped Trump. I especially enjoyed this:

Conservative firebrand and bestselling author Ann Coulter joined Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa Tuesday – and she delivered an epic smackdown of “speech Nazis” who ridiculed the GOP frontrunner for using the term “anchor baby.”

“Apparently liberals think ‘anchor baby’ isn’t pleasant sounding,” she said in a speech introducing Trump at the event. “They prefer words like ‘aborted baby.'”

She continued,“But I have an idea. How about anvil babies – because that’s what anchor babies are around the necks of the American taxpayer.”


​
Ann Coulter joins Trump in epic smackdown
On 'anchor babies': 'Maybe it'd be better to keep their mouths shut'
Published: 08/25/2015 at 9:18 PM

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/ann-coulter-joins-trump-rips-speech-nazis/
​

Freakazoids are so busy concentrating on killing babies they have no time for this one:

Now comes a whopper: much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue in Fitisemanu: whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission? The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left's immigration agenda.


​
XXXXX



​
Yet under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those of tourists are citizens at birth. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing in the United States. The holding of this case is widely misread as conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of diplomats, members of an invading force, and Indians born in the allegiance of a tribe. The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from constitutional birthright citizenship. The Court's decision has been incorrectly applied for 120 years.


​
July 11, 2018
It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship
By Brian Lonergan

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/its_time_to_reimagine_birthright_citizenship_.html
​

Tax dollars will serve a better purpose if it used to ship illegal alien mothers and their children back to their homelands.


'Anchor babies' cost taxpayers $2.4 billion annually
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 10/11/2018 @ 7:44 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/anchor-babies-cost-taxpayers-2-4-billion-annually/
​

Three cheers for Trump if he does it:


UZH5v1.gif

​


President Trump is planning to end birthright citizenship, calling the right for babies of noncitizens and illegal immigrants born in the U.S. to have citizenship “ridiculous.”

"How ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump told “Axios on HBO.” “It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end.


​
Trump Is Planning to End Birthright Citizenship Through Executive Order
Leah Barkoukis
Posted: Oct 30, 2018 6:45 AM

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahb...anning-to-end-birthright-citizenship-n2533213
​

If possible, the next EO should end stack doll migration.

nesting-dolls.jpg

​

It is interesting that the highest paid network mouths are called anchors? QUESTION: If they are anchors what in hell are they anchoring? ANSWER: Their tax dollar salaries.

Media mouths voicing their opinions on overt Democrat networks are contractually required to speak out against everything that defends this country’s sovereignty, while most opinion mouths on PHONY FOX must camouflage their support for birthright citizenship.

Finally, Lady Ann’s piece is loaded with facts for anyone who is interested in learning why anchor babies are NOT American citizens:


Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies
by Ann Coulter
31 Oct 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/31/ann-coulter-the-true-history-of-millstone-babies/
​
Click to expand...
Have you read the US citizenship statute?

Sent from my SM-G550T1 using Tapatalk
 
kudzu said:
Have you read the US citizenship statute?
Click to expand...

To kudzu: Have you read the Constitution?

Contrary to decisions handed down by Supreme Court activist justices no statute, no federal or state law, no regulation, no executive order, nor anything else invalidates the U.S. Constitution’s original purpose.

Flanders said:
The fact is, anchor babies are not citizens of the United States, and the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to babies born on American soil.


​
CNN Debate Fails On 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause
Douglas V. Gibbs Wednesday, October 19, 2011

https://canadafreepress.com/article/cnn-debate-fails-on-14th-amendments-citizenship-clause



​
XXXXX
​


Douglas V. Gibbs
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/06/myth-13-anchor-babies-are-american.html​
Click to expand...

​

anonymoose said:
But I suspect it says anchor babies automatically get citizenship.
Click to expand...

To anonymoose: They do if you believe Democrats and illegal aliens.
 
Flanders said:
To kudzu: Have you read the Constitution?

Contrary to decisions handed down by Supreme Court activist justices no statute, no federal or state law, no regulation, no executive order, nor anything else invalidates the U.S. Constitution’s original purpose.


​



To anonymoose: They do if you believe Democrats and illegal aliens.
Click to expand...


Of course I have read the US Constitution.. The Statues define what's in the Constitution. You should have read this ten years ago. The reason that anchor babies have US citizenship from birth is because the US has "jurisdiction" on US soil.


8 U.S. Code § 1401.Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
 
anonymoose said:
I haven't. But I suspect it says anchor babies automatically get citizenship.
Click to expand...

kudzu said:
I figured you would have read it ten years ago when the flap started about Obama not being a US citizen.
Click to expand...

To kudzu: I cannot believe you trotted out that long-ago discredited birth certificate crapola.

Obama manufactured a computer-generated birth certificate years before computers were available. It was a scam from start to finish in order to detract from his presidential INELIGIBILITY. Wall-to-wall media coverage made the scam work.

Flanders said:
NOTE: The Chicago sewer rat was American on his mother’s side. His presidential eligibility is another matter.
Click to expand...

Even if he was born in Kenya as his relatives swore they witnessed —— the issue was the definition of “natural born citizen”. In short: He is ineligible forever. Even if the Constitution is changed in the future it will not retroactively make a lying sack eligible in 2008.
 
Flanders said:
To kudzu: I cannot believe you trotted out that long-ago discredited birth certificate crapola.

Obama manufactured a computer-generated birth certificate years before computers were available. It was a scam from start to finish in order to detract from his presidential INELIGIBILITY. Wall-to-wall media coverage made the scam work.



Even if he was born in Kenya as his relatives swore they witnessed —— the issue was the definition of “natural born citizen”. In short: He is ineligible forever. Even if the Constitution is changed in the future it will not retroactively make a lying sack eligible in 2008.
Click to expand...

I am so sorry.. Even if Obama was born in Kenya he would be a natural born US citizen under the law... All his mother would have been required to do to bring him thru US customs and immigration was take him to the US embassy in Kenya where he would have been certified and given a US passport. If he was born in Hawaii, he was a natural born citizen because his mother was a US citizen.. and his father, BTW was under US jurisdiction.


The reality is that in 1961 it was 3 days hard flying time from Kenya to Hawaii and women were NOT permitted to fly those long routes after the second trimester or for a month after childbirth.


Its a very stupid controversy on so many fronts... promulgated by very ignorant people.


Most states today will generate a computerized BC .. I have originals, but when I ordered duplicates for my family members and children, they got certified computer generated BC.
 
kudzu said:
I am so sorry.. Even if Obama was born in Kenya he would be a natural born US citizen under the law...
Click to expand...

To kudzu: No he would not. The issue remains undecided is your only argument.


The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.


​
Decision on Obama citizenship pending
Court delays action on suit
Tom Ramstack
Saturday, December 6, 2008

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/
​

Naturally, the High Court circled the wagons to protect one of their own:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the previous appeal filed by New Jersey attorney Leo C. Donofrio.

​


Justices to mull Obama citizenship again
Tom Ramstack
Wednesday, December 10, 2008

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/justices-to-mull-obama-citizenship-again/
​

Frankly, I always feared that the High Court taking the case and declare that Obama was born in British East Africa —— but still eligible to be president. Such a decision would have effectively opened the door to naturalized American citizens becoming president. It would also have legitimated the illegal foreign campaign donations that Obama took to the tune of about $200,000,000. Nothing would stop future candidates from doing the same thing.

kudzu said:
All his mother would have been required to do to bring him thru US customs and immigration was take him to the US embassy in Kenya where he would have been certified and given a US passport. If he was born in Hawaii,
Click to expand...

To kudzu: The year of Obama’s birth was 1961 when Kenya was still British East Africa. I do not recall coming across that little detail in all of the stories I read.

I always said that the proof of Barack’s birthplace could be found in the records of the American Embassy in British East Africa not Hawaii. The American Embassy’s records in Kenya is where the truth resides. I should have been saying British East Africa.

I do not know how records are stored in State Department archives. Are the records involving Kenya from 1963 forward stored in a different place than the records before 1963 from British East Africa? I am guessing they are stored in a federal facility here in the U.S. So the pre-1963 records could be stored on a different level, or even in a different building than the records from 1963 onward. It would not have been difficult for anyone looking for the truth except for this:


Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama’s mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama’s 1961 birth are missing.

The State Department claims a 1980s General Services Administration directive resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other “nonvital” passport records, including Dunham’s 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.

Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama’s birth.


​
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
Posted By Jerome R. Corsi On 08/01/2010 @ 6:28 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2010/08/186677/
​

Then there is this: When Mama Obama registered Barack’s birth she would have written British East Africa rather than Kenya on any documents she filled out. To me, the repeated use of Kenya in stories is just one more piece of misdirection. To repeatedly say that Barack’s father was born in Kenya reads better than saying he was born in British East Africa.

Mama Obama could not arrive in this country carrying a baby she did not have listed on her passport when she left for Africa. I doubt if she could board a plane in Africa without proof that the infant was hers. That proof could only come from the U.S. Embassy records that would prove that he was not eligible to be president.

The story at the time said that Mama Obama planned on returning to the U.S. before the baby was due. That did not happen; so she had Barack in British East Africa according to Barack’s paternal grandmother and his half-sister.

In her wildest dreams Mama never saw her half-black son having a chance to run for president even assuming she was knowledgeable about the eligibility clause in the Constitution. If she did have presidential ambitions for baby Barack, and if she did understand the eligibility clause, she never would have went to British East Africa in the first place.

Being born in a foreign country is not covered by the constitutional meaning of natural born; especially when only one parent is American. That is why Obama’s people desperately claimed he was born in Hawaii. That is also why the people with the authority refuse to go to the American Embassy’s records in British East Africa from 1961, or go to the records from Mama Obama’s port of entry when she returned from British East Africa. The birth certificate smokescreen was their best hope of avoiding his constitutional ineligibility.

kudzu said:
he was a natural born citizen because his mother was a US citizen..
Click to expand...

To kudzu: In Obama’s case Joseph Goebbels is wrong:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
​


kudzu said:
and his father, BTW was under US jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

To kudzu: Of course he was subject to U.S. criminal laws in those few years he was an alien student in this country if that is what you mean by jurisdiction?

Obama’s father was always a Kenyan. He was never an American citizen.

Kenya was controlled by the UK as part of British East Africa; hence, Barrack Obama got dual citizenship from his father.

It is a dead certainty the Brits had irrefutable proof of Obama’s birth in British East Africa. There is no telling what Obama Senior’s reasoning might have been if he registered baby Barrack as a British subject. To Obama Senior it might have seemed the wise thing to do at the time. Getting those records from the Brits was a longshot even though they had no reason to help Obama to hide anything. The Brits had every reason to keep Obama in line by remaining silent about the information in their embassy records.

NOTE: The framers of the Constitution specifically prohibited dual citizenship from qualifying as natural born. That would account for Mama Obama’s lost passport records. The fact is that nobody knows what baby Barrack was when he entered this country.

Mama Obama could not take Barack out of British East Africa nor could she enter the U.S. carrying an infant without the proper documentation. That always highlighted the importance of U.S. Embassy/Consulate personnel in 1961, Some of those State Department people who were assigned to the U.S. Embassy/Consulate in British East Africa in 1961 might be alive even today. Lets face it. Not too many white women were showing up with a black baby in 1961. So there is every chance that one or two have a memory of Mama Obama appearing with baby Barack in her arms in order to add his name on her passport, or get documentation in his name.

By the way, Obama was once a citizen of Indonesia, too. Mama Obama apparently selected her mates by their citizenship as well as their political leanings.

kudzu said:
The reality is that in 1961 it was 3 days hard flying time from Kenya to Hawaii and women were NOT permitted to fly those long routes after the second trimester or for a month after childbirth.
Click to expand...

To kudzu: Say what you will, but her trip to Africa indicates she returned home with her baby after he was born in Kenya.

In any event, I doubt if Mama Obama flew non-stop from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961; so it was only a matter of locating her port of entry when she returned. I do not know which airline she flew. It might have been BOAC. She might have changed airlines en route. If not, the airline she did fly is probably out of business, or changed owners several times. Unfortunately, 49 year old airline records are probably non-existent. On the plus side, there could not have been too many American women carrying a baby flying in from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961. That would have narrowed the search if anybody was looking. Nobody looked as far as I know.

kudzu said:
Most states today will generate a computerized BC .. I have originals, but when I ordered duplicates for my family members and children, they got certified computer generated BC.
Click to expand...

To kudzu: I do not know what that has to do with registering Barrack’s birth and palming it off as a birth certificate. Did Hawaiian newspaper etc., happen to mention the hospital where Barack was born? or the name of the doctor who delivered him? or anything that could be verified except the fact that his mother registered his birth? To date, Obama’s surrogates do all of the talking. Nobody ever presented proof to “controlling legal authorities” that he was telling the truth.
 
Well, this thread started out stupid and rapidly degenerated. Hats off to Kudzu for keeping the birthertard occupied and out of the rest of the forum. lol
 
Flanders said:
To kudzu: No he would not. The issue remains undecided is your only argument.


The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.


​
Decision on Obama citizenship pending
Court delays action on suit
Tom Ramstack
Saturday, December 6, 2008

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/
​

Naturally, the High Court circled the wagons to protect one of their own:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the previous appeal filed by New Jersey attorney Leo C. Donofrio.

​


Justices to mull Obama citizenship again
Tom Ramstack
Wednesday, December 10, 2008

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/10/justices-to-mull-obama-citizenship-again/
​

Frankly, I always feared that the High Court taking the case and declare that Obama was born in British East Africa —— but still eligible to be president. Such a decision would have effectively opened the door to naturalized American citizens becoming president. It would also have legitimated the illegal foreign campaign donations that Obama took to the tune of about $200,000,000. Nothing would stop future candidates from doing the same thing.



To kudzu: The year of Obama’s birth was 1961 when Kenya was still British East Africa. I do not recall coming across that little detail in all of the stories I read.

I always said that the proof of Barack’s birthplace could be found in the records of the American Embassy in British East Africa not Hawaii. The American Embassy’s records in Kenya is where the truth resides. I should have been saying British East Africa.

I do not know how records are stored in State Department archives. Are the records involving Kenya from 1963 forward stored in a different place than the records before 1963 from British East Africa? I am guessing they are stored in a federal facility here in the U.S. So the pre-1963 records could be stored on a different level, or even in a different building than the records from 1963 onward. It would not have been difficult for anyone looking for the truth except for this:


Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the State Department has released passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham, President Obama’s mother – but records for the years surrounding Obama’s 1961 birth are missing.

The State Department claims a 1980s General Services Administration directive resulted in the destruction of many passport applications and other “nonvital” passport records, including Dunham’s 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for or held prior to 1965.

Destroyed, then, would also be any records shedding light on whether Dunham did or did not travel out of the country around the time of Barack Obama’s birth.


​
Oops! Obama mama passport 'destroyed'
Posted By Jerome R. Corsi On 08/01/2010 @ 6:28 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2010/08/186677/
​

Then there is this: When Mama Obama registered Barack’s birth she would have written British East Africa rather than Kenya on any documents she filled out. To me, the repeated use of Kenya in stories is just one more piece of misdirection. To repeatedly say that Barack’s father was born in Kenya reads better than saying he was born in British East Africa.

Mama Obama could not arrive in this country carrying a baby she did not have listed on her passport when she left for Africa. I doubt if she could board a plane in Africa without proof that the infant was hers. That proof could only come from the U.S. Embassy records that would prove that he was not eligible to be president.

The story at the time said that Mama Obama planned on returning to the U.S. before the baby was due. That did not happen; so she had Barack in British East Africa according to Barack’s paternal grandmother and his half-sister.

In her wildest dreams Mama never saw her half-black son having a chance to run for president even assuming she was knowledgeable about the eligibility clause in the Constitution. If she did have presidential ambitions for baby Barack, and if she did understand the eligibility clause, she never would have went to British East Africa in the first place.

Being born in a foreign country is not covered by the constitutional meaning of natural born; especially when only one parent is American. That is why Obama’s people desperately claimed he was born in Hawaii. That is also why the people with the authority refuse to go to the American Embassy’s records in British East Africa from 1961, or go to the records from Mama Obama’s port of entry when she returned from British East Africa. The birth certificate smokescreen was their best hope of avoiding his constitutional ineligibility.



To kudzu: In Obama’s case Joseph Goebbels is wrong:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
​




To kudzu: Of course he was subject to U.S. criminal laws in those few years he was an alien student in this country if that is what you mean by jurisdiction?

Obama’s father was always a Kenyan. He was never an American citizen.

Kenya was controlled by the UK as part of British East Africa; hence, Barrack Obama got dual citizenship from his father.

It is a dead certainty the Brits had irrefutable proof of Obama’s birth in British East Africa. There is no telling what Obama Senior’s reasoning might have been if he registered baby Barrack as a British subject. To Obama Senior it might have seemed the wise thing to do at the time. Getting those records from the Brits was a longshot even though they had no reason to help Obama to hide anything. The Brits had every reason to keep Obama in line by remaining silent about the information in their embassy records.

NOTE: The framers of the Constitution specifically prohibited dual citizenship from qualifying as natural born. That would account for Mama Obama’s lost passport records. The fact is that nobody knows what baby Barrack was when he entered this country.

Mama Obama could not take Barack out of British East Africa nor could she enter the U.S. carrying an infant without the proper documentation. That always highlighted the importance of U.S. Embassy/Consulate personnel in 1961, Some of those State Department people who were assigned to the U.S. Embassy/Consulate in British East Africa in 1961 might be alive even today. Lets face it. Not too many white women were showing up with a black baby in 1961. So there is every chance that one or two have a memory of Mama Obama appearing with baby Barack in her arms in order to add his name on her passport, or get documentation in his name.

By the way, Obama was once a citizen of Indonesia, too. Mama Obama apparently selected her mates by their citizenship as well as their political leanings.



To kudzu: Say what you will, but her trip to Africa indicates she returned home with her baby after he was born in Kenya.

In any event, I doubt if Mama Obama flew non-stop from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961; so it was only a matter of locating her port of entry when she returned. I do not know which airline she flew. It might have been BOAC. She might have changed airlines en route. If not, the airline she did fly is probably out of business, or changed owners several times. Unfortunately, 49 year old airline records are probably non-existent. On the plus side, there could not have been too many American women carrying a baby flying in from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961. That would have narrowed the search if anybody was looking. Nobody looked as far as I know.



To kudzu: I do not know what that has to do with registering Barrack’s birth and palming it off as a birth certificate. Did Hawaiian newspaper etc., happen to mention the hospital where Barack was born? or the name of the doctor who delivered him? or anything that could be verified except the fact that his mother registered his birth? To date, Obama’s surrogates do all of the talking. Nobody ever presented proof to “controlling legal authorities” that he was telling the truth.
Click to expand...

I made two dozen trips to the ME in the 1950s and 1960s and the records of the manifests are still available.

Obama's father was in the US on a student visa.. so by law he was under US jurisdiction..

Thousands of natural born Americans are born overseas every year.. Its not a big deal. Three of my siblings were born overseas. All you do is register the birth with the nearest US consulate. They take the babies footprint and issue a US passport. You can't bring undocumented babies into the US.

Who is claiming Obama's mother's passport was lost? Have you ever had a passport?

Why BOAC? Why not Air France, Swissair, Luftansa or Pan Am.. or TWA or KLM?

There was NO international airport in Kenya until the 1970s so they had to fly to Cairo or elsewhere with connecting flights out of Rome or Amsterdam or Frankfort or Madrid.

Obama was never in Kenya until he was about 20 years old and his mother was never out of the US until she married her second husband and went to Indonesia when Obama was 6 or 7..

I am sorry for you.

We know what hospital in Hawaii Obama was born in .. and we know the history of the hospital and its expansion.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Well, this thread started out stupid and rapidly degenerated. Hats off to Kudzu for keeping the birthertard occupied and out of the rest of the forum. lol
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be unkind, but this is pitiful. I can't believe He still doesn't understand JURISDICTION.. Anyone on US soil is under US jurisdiction because NO OTHER COUNTRY'S LAWS ARE CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY IN THE US.

Anyone on US soil.. tourist, student, businessman.. legal or illegal is under US jurisdiction with the exception of foreign diplomats.

After ten years you'd think they would read the US statutes.
 
kudzu said:
I don't mean to be unkind, but this is pitiful. I can't believe He still doesn't understand JURISDICTION.. Anyone on US soil is under US jurisdiction because NO OTHER COUNTRY'S LAWS ARE CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY IN THE US.

Anyone on US soil.. tourist, student, businessman.. legal or illegal is under US jurisdiction with the exception of foreign diplomats.

After ten years you'd think they would read the US statutes.
Click to expand...

You would, wouldn't you?

Maybe the concept would make more sense if you pointed out that when you are in another country, you are subject to THEIR jurisdiction... not the U.S.'s? We've all seen news stories about Americans who violated a law in a foreign nation and were jailed.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
You would, wouldn't you?

Maybe the concept would make more sense if you pointed out that when you are in another country, you are subject to THEIR jurisdiction... not the U.S.'s? We've all seen news stories about Americans who violated a law in a foreign nation and were jailed.
Click to expand...


That's true.. Sadly many Americans think they are under US when they get in trouble in Spain or the UAE or elsewhere and they think the US Embassy will bail them out.
 
UPDATE
​

Flanders said:
Finally, Lady Ann’s piece is loaded with facts for anyone who is interested in learning why anchor babies are NOT American citizens:


Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies
by Ann Coulter
31 Oct 2018

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/31/ann-coulter-the-true-history-of-millstone-babies/
​
Click to expand...

When in hell is he going to stop CONSIDERING and do it?

President Trump says he’s revisiting the idea of eliminating the nation’s birthright citizenship policy that allows the illegal-alien families of “anchor babies” born in the U.S. to remain in the country.

Trump told reporters on Wednesday his administration is considering an executive order to end the “ridiculous” policy.

“We’re looking at that very seriously — birthright citizenship. Where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations the baby is now a U.S. citizen,” Trump said.

“We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. It’s, frankly, ridiculous.”

President Trump vowed in October 2018 to end the policy, but it remains intact.

An average of about 300,000 children of illegal aliens are born in the United States each year as American citizens, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data.

Breitbart News noted the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted birthright citizenship, and many legal scholars dispute the idea. The U.S. and Canada are the only two developed nations with birthright citizenship.

‘Zero connection to the United States’

Trump made an issue of the policy as early as 2011 in his book “Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again,” which contains a five-point plan on immigration reform.

Among the proposals is to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment, contending it is being misinterpreted to establish a legal basis for birthright citizenship.

“Some four million anchor babies are now officially U.S. citizens,” Trump wrote. “This has to stop. The only other major country in the world that issues citizenship based on where one’s mother delivers her child is Canada. The rest of the world bases citizenship on who the kid’s parents are, which is of course the only sane standard.”

He asked: “If a pregnant American mother is traveling to Egypt on business and goes into delivery, do we instantly declare her child an Egyptian? Of course not.”

But in the United States, he wrote, “women who have zero connection to the United States cross the border, deliver a baby, and their kid magically becomes an American citizen eligible to receive all the rights and benefits of those who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in our country.”

The 14th Amendment states: “All citizens born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”

Trump argued that the “clear purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, three years after the end of the Civil War, was to guarantee full citizenship rights to now emancipated former slaves.”

“It was not intended to guarantee untrammeled immigration to the United States,” he wrote.

Trump expressed support for previous discussion by Republican Sens. John Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina about introducing a constitutional amendment to “clarify and restore the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
​


Trump considers ending 'ridiculous' anchor-baby policy
Posted By WND Staff On 08/22/2019 @ 3:32 pm

https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/trump-considers-ending-ridiculous-anchor-baby-policy/
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top