The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at:

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

14 comments on “The illegal birthright problem

  1. peppermintfarm says:

    Excellent post Bull!

    This anchor baby scheme pisses me off too to no end. I don’t care about being PC and never have. Sure these so called elites can tell us this and that should not be said but who made them the word police? It’s insane and as far as I know we still do have the 1rst Amendment.

    Nobody jumps down Sharpton’s throat for the horrible things he says. No PC for him, the liberal, bomb throwing racist.

    Fox keep insisting Trump has it wrong about the 14th Amendment and it doesn’t need a Constitutional amendment. It would only take Congress to change the rules of this amendment.

    Now that’s unlikely to ever happen because Congress will never change it due to the left and some usual RINOs.

    I think it’s funny Jeb got into trouble for using the term anchor babies. He only said it following Trump’s lead. LOL! Now he’s taking Trump’s words to make himself look like he doesn’t think we should have anchor babies but we know he’s faking it and lying.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bullright says:

      Amen Pepp, for still having the 1st Amendment (which preceded the 14th) though as hard as they make it to exercise. Sharpton, Rangel, Cornell West, Maxine Waters Elijah Cumins, Alcee Hastings and all. We saw the stories they made up about the Tea Party. But anything they say is gospel (according to the Left) Not to forget contemptible Eric Holder too. Nothing they say can be questioned, but everything we say is.

      Fox condemns Trump for saying it, then brand him like a racist. Right Congress wouldn’t do their duty. Even though Harry Reid has said about the same thing. (94-95?) See O’Rielly is on Trump too, the expert of everything. We don’t need an amendment, which is what O’Reilly says. Some of these RINOs, I think, are worse than the Left because they lend legitimacy to it.

      Right, I thought Jeb under the language police was amusing. He actually said he was referring to the Asian people, not the Mexicans. LOL Thanks for clarifying it Jeb. (it’s only the beginning) He buckles right under, smearing Trump as wacky when he made sense. Plus Jeb’s ugly anger is showing. We aren’t dumb.


      • the unit says:

        Well SCOTUS says intentions mean more than word meanings.
        “We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008
        Old song becomes Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, DumbraAnn. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bullright says:

          Who needs the Constitution or any “chains” or separation of powers any more? Just revert everything to the Supremes for their fiat law and voila. At least then you know who is driving the car, eh?

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Davetherave says:

    Good post Bull and excellent summation. The Speech Police have taken over for the Dream Police. The Alinskys are doubling down against free speech from their 2012 IRS platform that worked. I’d personally rather call them what they really are instead of anchor babies: THEY’RE ILLEGAL ALIEN BABIES! This bullshit that the 14th amendment guarantees citizenship if one is born on American turf is just that…total and utter bullshit.

    I use one simple example that makes the case IMO. The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868. I’m positive I learned in history class there were American Indians here before 1868 and even before the Mayflower ran aground. So knowing all this to be facts, why did congress have to pass and President Coolidge sign the Indian Citizenship Act in f*cking 1924! Fifty six f*cking years later!

    The 14th amendment did not give citizenship to American Indians (that were born prior to the 14th amendment being adopted), so how the hell is it doing it for illegal aliens over 130 years after it was adopted? It doesn’t and like you point out so well; the whole f*cking conversation is just ridiculous. The rat bastards in Dipshit City are just fighting over votes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bullright says:

      Very well put Dave. Good points – history and timing being what it is. There must be lots of bridges for sale, if they’re interested. But this one is a bridge too far. Even Reid, bless his twisted heart, agreed with that sentiment back in the day. And now they have O’Reilly head and Fox people drinking the juice, just because they don’t like Trump. That’s a hell of a reason for their position.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Davetherave says:

        FOX has reminded me why I stopped watching their lousy ass channel years ago. Wolves in sheep’s clothing protecting the RINO’s. FOX’s logo should be the Trojan horse…

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bullright says:

          Sad isn’t it. They can’t even stand up for their own mission. Yesterday Rupert twitted (after telling Bioomster to run)

          Seriously, I have the title for O’Reilly’s next book “Killing Fox“.


    • Bullright says:

      BTW, Dave, how come every other place it is marked that Congress can make rules they seemed to have found and extorted to the max but this gigantic blank slate?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Davetherave says:

        Good question Bull. IMO congress shouldn’t even have to touch this one, but rather the courts should just enforce the original meaning of the 14th amendment (that’s so damn obvious). Anywho, in this day and age neither party is now going to touch this with a 12ft high, 1500 mile long fence.

        The Alinskys damn well know they’ll get the far majority of the south-of-the-border folk and the Repukes are caught up in some acid delusion they can still get the majority of the south-of-the-border folk vote. The DC Alinskys seem to be much better at dealing with reality. The Repukes must want to elect H.G. Wells as the next head of the RNC.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bullright says:

          Great Dave, it’s a matter of enforcing the law. (again) Why they say we need another amendment is ludicrous. Let them get an amendment, they would need it. Some acid delusion is the only explanation. LOL . When Trump threw Jorge Ramos out of the press conference I laughed my ass off. The only thing missing was “you’re fired”. Piece of 1st amendment waste.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Davetherave says:

            If they were to do another amendment Bull, the damn traitors would just further ruin the 14th amendment. When was the last time congress made anything better? Alaska wanted a bridge to nowhere and our idiot leaders want no-toll bridges to frigging everywhere!

            That was awesome when Trump had Ramos tossed. The 1st amendment does not guarantee or protect the rights for someone to not follow rules. If Trump had tossed a lily white cracker reporter, there would be zero coverage. Don’t ya’ just love this new equality for all? 😀

            Liked by 1 person

            • Bullright says:

              Right making things better, must be a law against that. Their job is supposed to give the USA away? Yep, no charge, pass go.They can’t attack Hill or Jeb that way., Hey, there’s an idea Jeb and Hill on the same ticket. LOL what cracker would get back in?


  3. […] The illegal birthright problem […]



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s