OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!

I make no qualms I am a fan of Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.  But you are allowed to disagree with your heroes.  Well folks here is that time.  The subject is immigration.  I got an email from uber-constituionalist Devvy Kidd who has taken the Judge to task for his support of so-called immigration reform.  She sites a time when the judge appeared last November with uber-left “comic” Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, one of many propaganda programs where this malinformed nation gets its news. The judge supports open borders and this is where I have to say OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR! You said people are born to move freely about. Sadly your honor it includes rapists, murderers and terrorists.

Now if I may add something to Devvy’s point, in the judge’s new book Theodore and Woodrow, he blasts Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-immigration policies.  And though he was a progressive and brought about very progressive concepts, I must say though, he was spot on when he said there was no room in this country for hyphenated-Americans. This is found on page 13 of the book.

“The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans.”

Your honor, we are AMERICANS FIRST.  I call myself an American of Italian dissent or America-Italian if you will.  My grandpa was born in Italy, came here, went to night school and assimilated himself to American culture and eventually became a citizen.  So yes I am a grandson of an immigrant.

I guess your honor you find it great an immigration reform act headed up by four members of the Democratic/Communist Party and four neocon Republicans: Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado along with neocon Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona (A BORDER STATE), Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida (who was born to CUBAN PARENTS AND THUS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN) has been presented.

Why would you allow illegals to live in this country…SO THEY CAN ROB US OF OUR RESOURCES AND JOBS?!

I mean even Dwight D Eisenhower was able to do something about illegal aliens…HE DEPORTED MILLIONS OF THEM.

But another Republican, the so-called hero of conservatives Ronald Wilson Reagan, SUPPORTED AMNESTY IN 1986!

There is one thing that can work regarding illegals…E-Verify works pretty good, but there are even more stringent ways to clean illegals off the employment rolls. Dry up the employment and they will go back to wherever they came from.

Giving illegals a path to citizenship, in this very unstable economy, run by power elite banks like JP Morgan and Bank of America, would FURTHER RUIN the economy.

Devvy offers up some sobering stats in her email alert to subscribers.

We Spend about $397 Billion dollars in Welfare and Other Social Services for Illegals since 1996
There are about 5 million children of Illegals in the Public Schools
There are  420,137 Illegals in the State of Arizona
There are Currently 22,753,048 illegal immigrants in this country in our jails and 740,000 fugitives
They hold 11,570,070 Skilled jobs in this country.

HOW DO YOU EXPECT US YOUR HONOR TO DO OVER 11 MILLION BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ILLEGALS IN THIS NATION?!  AND TELL ME ONCE AND FOR ALL, WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT ALLOW ILLEGAL ALIENS TO LIVE HERE?

Well, try the 14th amendment…its original intent.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

And also, there is the matter of a case cited by those in the so-called birther movement.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court caseonce again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

And apparently, judges like you, your honor.  You are way out of order here sir.

Advertisements