Phyllis Schlafly: Birthright citizenship should be repealed like the Dred Scott case

[alp227]

From People for the American Way's blog Right Wing Watch:

Opponents of birthright citizenship have mobilized in Congress and in fourteen state legislatures to pass legislation that would reinterpret the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship. At a forum of state legislators who support scrapping birthright citizenship, Republican State Rep. Daniel B. Verdi of South Carolina compared illegal immigration to “the malady of slavery” and Republican State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe said such legislation would help “bring an end to the illegal alien invasion.”

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly praised their efforts in a column today, promoting the plans by Republican politicians to do-away with birthright citizenship through legislation rather than an amendment to the constitution even though the Supreme Court ruled that even the children of illegal immigrants have constitutional protections in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a ruling confirmed in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

From Schlafly's column:

It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10 percent of all births.

…

The amnesty crowd tries to tell us that the 14th Amendment makes automatic citizens out of "all persons" born in the United States, but they conveniently ignore the rest of the sentence. It's not enough to be "born" in the U.S. -- you can claim citizenship only if you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, overruled the Dred Scott decision wherein the U.S. Supreme Court declared that African-Americans could not be citizens. Those who support court-made law should forever be reminded of Abraham Lincoln's warning that if we accept the supremacy of judges, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

So what would be the Republicans' alternative? A generation of stateless citizens? PBS NewsHour reported last month that the Dominican Republic retroactively revoked Haitian immigrants' citizenship because their ancestors weren't citizens! I thought that conservatives VALUED being American and citizenship and thus would NOT want a bigger generation of stateless people in their country. Ending birthright citizenship won't just solve the illegal immigration issue - what about the issues of border security, human smuggling, and employers that willfully hire the undocumented?

Oh, the conservative term to describe children of illegal aliens? "Anchor baby". And don't you think that given that people of European ancestry will become a minority by 2050 that anti-immigrant activists are trying to use code language to "take their country back"?

[Hannah Bell]

1. crawl back to your crypt, phyllis. what are you, 210 now?

[alp227]

4. naw, she's turning 87 this year. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

9. only if you believe her fake birth certificate. she was around when i was a kid.

and she looked exactly the same as she does today.

she's one of the UnDead.

they live!

[NuclearDem]

2. Phyllis's citizenship should be revoked

Even if just for giving birth to the MORAN behind conservapedia

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Phyllis Schlafly should just STFU.

Seriously.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

5. Can we deport Michelle Malkin? Please? (n/m)

[Fleshdancer]

6. For people who supposedly love the Constitution...

they sure have a stupid way of showing it. :eyes:

[RainDog]

7. then all the non-Native Americans will need to leave

because every single one of us who are here because our ancestors came from Europe are also anchor babies.

[alp227]

11. well i guess she doesn't wanna make the anti-birthright citizenship thing retroactive

because that'd wreak HUGE chaos in America...they'd give back America to the Indians even though they were whining about Obama wanting to give Manhattan back to them (truth: Obama supported a UN resolution for indigenous people's rights)

[RainDog]

13. how conveeeeenient for her n/t

[NuclearDem]

18. I really hope you're just referring to descendants of the original colonists

Or are us sons and grandsons of, say, Soviet and East German refugees who went through naturalization, also anchor babies?

[RainDog]

25. I was merely noting that all of us who are white came here b/c of some other white person

who immigrated.

my ancestors came here from France in the 1700s - actually first settled in Canada.

my remark was sarcastic.

my kids are "half-anchor" babies because their dad came here from Europe in the 1980s. but he's not a citizen and I am so I guess Schafley might prescribe one of those "solomonic" solutions and just deport half of my children. which half, tho, I dunno.

[upi402]

8. All European decendant non-native Americans now in politics should get out of the USA now

if their first names start with Schlaf and end in -ly.

[Major Hogwash]

10. Schlafly quoted what Lincoln said from a tea party she was at with him as the honored speaker.

So, if Syphilus Phyllis remembers it that way, it must be true.

[pinboy3niner]

12. "I would guess that every illegal immigrant tossed...

...into one of Sheriff Joe's jails would concede that he was subject to the jurisdiction thereof, lest he wouldn't be wearing pink underwear."

--Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/112851

[aquart]

14. She doesn't know the difference between a court decision and an amendment?

Or the complete and total difference in the processes involved? Where was she educated? Who gets the credit for this illiteracy in her own government?

[alp227]

21. she has a law degree from Washington U at St Louis

[Demeter]

15. Because 234 Years of Freedom and Democracy Is Too Many!

I'm amazed the acid hasn't eaten through her flesh yet.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Guess who else agreed with her?.....

Loughner's ramblings appear rooted in far right.....LA Times


Berlet noted Loughner's declaration about a "second Constitution" — an issue debated by mainstream scholars and white supremacists alike over the markedly different character of the amendments that came after the Civil War.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments deal with citizenship and voting rights for freed slaves, immigrants and all those born in the U.S., the latter being a key point of controversy in the modern immigration debate. They also establish the "validity of the public debt of the United States" — echoing, Berlet suggested, the issue of U.S. currency.
"Reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the government because of the ratifications," Loughner wrote.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-extremism-20110112,0,7697607.story

[Le Taz Hot]

17. I swear, evil must be some kind of preservative.

Her and Cheney should have passed on to the netherworlds years ago.

[hobbit709]

19. does she realize if we go back to those years, she no longer has the vote.

[reformist2]

20. What a WEIRD comparison!

It's bizarre that she would cite the nullification of the Dred Scott decision to justify taking away people's rights.

[KamaAina]

22. Aw c'mon. Even Phyllis can do better than that.

Based on search engine hits, emphasis on "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the nativist right's meme du jour (French intentional). Here's what it means in the reality-based world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America#Jus_soli

As of 2006, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens from birth. According to that law the following acquire citizenship by jus soli:

"a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

"a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)....

A reasonable inference is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "not a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe", Thanks for playing, though, Phyllis, and be sure to enjoy your copy of our home game!

Oh, and be sure not to scoff the next time a gun-control advocate insists on reading the entire Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free people..."

[Skidmore]

23. Someone care to point out to these people that if there is no

birthright citizenship then their own right to citizenship could be called into question on any other factor someone else would care to use.

[onenote]

24. Under Schlafly's reading, Congress could deny African Americans citizenship again

Her take, and that of idiots like Rep. King, is that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause in the 14th Amendment allows Congress to set the rules as to what individuals born in the US are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship. King's proposal would use the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause as the basis for imposing a "jurisidictional" limit on citizenship to children born in the US who have at least one parent that is a citizen. But the same "logic" that would allow the Congress to impose conditions on citizenship would allow them to say that someone is a citizen if born in the US only if both of their parents are white. Or Christian. Or Republican.

They're crazy and dishonest. But we knew that.