BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP. OKAY FOR PILGRIMS, NOT FOR OTHER PEOPLE,

YEAH, YOU KNEW I'D TAKE A SHOT AT THE GOP AND ALL WHO ARE MAKING A BIG STINK ABOUT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.

WHO ALL MIGHT, JUST MIGHT, BE AFFECTED BY THIS CHANGE IF WE DO AWAY WITH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND SOMEONE WITH A LOT OF MONEY AND THE GUTS FOR IT WANTS TO MAKE THIS RETROACTIVE, SAY?
EVERYBODY EXCEPT TRULY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

"NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES" WOULD NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THEIR ANCESTORS WERE HERE WAY BEFORE THOSE EUROPEANS CLAMORED ASHORE...SANS VISAS.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY ONLY TWO ELECTED U.S. CONGRESSMEN WHO CLAIM "NATIVE AMERICAN LINEAGE".

SINCE WE HAD A CONGRESS, THERE HAVE BEEN FEWER THAN 20, IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF AMERICA, LESS THAN 20.

SO, GUESS WHAT?
EVERYBODY ELSE WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED FOR CONGRESS, EVERYBODY WHOSE ANCESTORS DID NOT WATCH THE BOATS ARRIVE BRINGING THOSE ORIGINAL "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" HAD AN ANCESTOR SOMEWHERE WHO ATTAINED CITIZENSHIP BY BEING BORN HERE!
EVERYONE WHO SURVIVED THE OCEANS TO GET OVER HERE TO THE "NEW WORLD" HAD "ANCHOR BABIES" AS TRUMP AND JEB BUSH HAS CALLED THEM.

I CHECKED WITH ALL 566 "FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED" TRIBES AND, NO, NOPE, NONE OF THEM ISSUED A SINGLE VISA TO ANY OF THOSE "BOAT PEOPLE". THEY WERE NOT HERE ON "GREEN CARDS"!
THEY WERE "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS".

[ BTW, I DID NOT CHECK WITH ALL 566 TRIBES, BUT IT'S THOUGHT-PROVOKING, YES? AND IT IS HISTORICALLY ACCURATE...THEY HAD NO VISAS!]

THEY CAME, THOSE 'SETTLERS', AND, USING A PHRASE COMMONLY SPOKEN BY THOSE WHO DISLIKE OTHERS COMING HERE, THEY HAD "ANCHOR BABIES", CHILDREN BORN HERE, THE FIRST OF THEIR KIND, WHITE KIDS BORN ON "TURTLE ISLAND", aka, "THE NEW WORLD" AND LATER KNOWN AS AMERICA, NAMED SO AFTER THAT ITALIAN CARTOGRAPHER/PORNOGRAPHER, AMERIGO VESPUCCI.
[YES, HE DID PUBLISH ILLUSTRATED PORN! "His detailed descriptions of the sexual, marriage and childbirth habits of the native peoples became very popular with readers in Europe."]

SO, WHO MADE IT "THE LAW" THAT BEING BORN HERE MADE PEOPLE INSTANT CITIZENS?
<CUE DRUMROLL>

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!THE GOP, THE 'PUBLICANS DID IT !"In the end, Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment—including the Citizenship Clause—on June 13, 1866. And the Fourteenth Amendment was finally ratified by “We the People” on July 9, 1868."

THE HISTORY OF HOW IT HAPPENED WILL COME A FEW LINES DOWN, BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE CURRENT 'PUBLICANS WHO DON'T LIKE THE IDEA ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY FEAR ALL THOSE BIRTHRIGHT FOLKS WILL VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS.Birthright citizenship has split the GOP presidential field. 

"Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, fellow Republican presidential hopefuls 
Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and even longtime immigration reform advocate Lindsey Graham have said they support ENDING the practice. 

ADD THE REPUBLICAN "VILLAGE IDIOT", AS MANY CALL HIM, TED CRUZ:
"I welcome Donald Trump articulating this view," said Texas senator Ted Cruz. "It is a view I have long held."

 Scott Walker [LIED] said Friday that he would take no position on the birthright issue — days after he was WIDELY reported to have echoed Trump's sentiments.
ANOTHER FLIP-FLOPPER, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who signed on to an anti-birthright bill while serving in Congress, recently said he does not now think the law should be changed.

ALL OPPOSED?
Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush have been the most vocally opposed."

I HAVE DILIGENTLY SEARCHED FOR DEMO-CATS WHO AGREE WITH TRUMP.
WHEN I FIND THEM, THEIR NAMES WILL GO RIGHT HERE!

*** FOUND ONE! "Trump also noted that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid once backed the idea of ending birthright citizenship, a position Reid abandoned and one that is almost universally rejected by Democrats today." 

OLD HARRY REID...WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?
THAT ARTICLE EXPLAINS A BIT ABOUT THE LEGALITIES OF THIS CRAP, SO IF YOU CARE READ ALL ABOUT IT <HERE>.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND I AM OPPOSED TO "PARTIES", ANY AND ALL.

"Those who side with Trump in ending birthright citizenship are doomed, if they become the nominee, to losing the White House," said Alfonso Aguilar, head of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship.   

Trump, who argues that birthright citizenship can be modified in the courts, has fed the fire on the trail by brandishing the term "anchor babies" — a label many consider an offensive way to accuse immigrants of having children in the U.S. to ease their own path to citizenship.
While polls widely show right-leaning voters hungry for immigration clampdowns -- and give Trump double-digit leads over his competitors -- he admits there's a high hurdle to changing the rules.


I'LL TELL YOU THIS: SEVERAL MORE MILITANT OF OUR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, INCLUDING SEVERAL TRIBAL ATTORNEYS, ARE WATCHING THIS LIKE A HAWK!

IF THE GOP DENIES BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, THEN THAT MEANS ALL WHITES WHO HAVE ANCESTORS WHO BECAME CITIZENS BY "BIRTHRIGHT" CAN BE DECLARED, LEGALLY, "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS", OR SO IT WOULD APPEAR!

IF PEOPLE BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL TODAY, OR 10-30 OR MORE YEARS AGO AREN'T "REAL U.S. CITIZENS", THEN NEITHER IS ANYBODY DISPUTING THIS IN CONGRESS TODAY...EXCEPT FOR REPS TOM COLE AND MARKWAYNE MULLIN FROM OKLAHOMA. THEY ARE THE ONLY TWO IN CONGRESS WITH NATIVE AMERICAN LINEAGE.

HERE IS THE HISTORY ON THIS:

"The leaders of the 1866 Republican Party—the Party of Lincoln—were staunch supporters of the idea. Indeed, birthright citizenship was central to the Republican vision for post-Civil War America, and a key dividing line between the supporters of President Andrew Johnson and those of the Republican leadership in Congress.

Birthright citizenship had long been the traditional rule in the United States—one rooted in the English common law and adopted by many colonies and early states. Citizenship was acquired by soil rather than bloodline—subject to a few well-established exceptions, such as for the children of foreign diplomats or invading armies. But various Southern courts in antebellum America chose to diverge from this tradition in certain cases, allowing their states to deny birthright citizenship to those they deemed unworthy, such as African Americans.

This Southern “tradition”—fueled by white supremacy—was reinforced by the opinions of certain pro-slavery Attorneys General and ultimately codified in the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, authored by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, himself a former pro-slavery Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson. In Dred Scott, Taney concluded that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens even if they were born free on American soil.

During Reconstruction, one of the Republican Party’s central goals was to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee equal citizenship for everyone born on American soil. 

President Lincoln signaled this move early in his administration through an 1862 opinion by his Attorney General, Edward Bates. 

Replying to a request by Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, Bates defended birthright citizenship for African Americans, explaining, “You and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than ‘the accident of birth.’” 

After the Civil War, congressional Republicans followed Bates’ (and Lincoln’s) lead.

By late 1865, Lincoln’s promise of a “new birth of freedom” was very much in doubt. Following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, President Johnson had pardoned thousands of Confederate officials and plantation owners. 

More troubling, he deferred to the Southern states on how best to rebuild their societies, leaving them free to enact the Black Codes, which sharply limited the civil rights of the newly freed slaves.

With the ex-rebels gaining political strength and an important midterm election looming the following fall, congressional Republicans quickly settled on a potent one-two punch. First, they would pass a civil rights bill that would counter the Black Codes and secure important protections for the newly freed slaves. 

Second, they would push for a constitutional amendment that would establish constitutional baselines for post-Civil War America. At the center of both of these measures was a key principle—birthright citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard, a radical Republican from Michigan, was at the center of this political fight. He helped to draft and pass the Thirteenth Amendment, ending slavery. 

He also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and supported the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 

Most importantly, when Senator William Pitt Fessenden—Chair of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction—fell ill, Howard took over as the chief spokesperson for the Fourteenth Amendment, which was to establish the laws governing citizenship.

In this new role, Howard introduced the measure before a packed Senate gallery on May 23, 1866—a speech that was published on the front pages of various newspapers, including the New York Times and the New York Herald. 

While Howard explained quite well the “privileges or immunities” of U.S. citizenship that would be protected by the proposed amendment, the draft amendment did not yet define how one became a citizen in the first place. 

Was it by virtue of birth or blood? 

A product of national policy or state prerogative? 

And, what would happen if the Republican Party fell out of power and the supporters of the Old Confederacy took over the federal government?

A week later, Howard rose in the Senate and proposed an answer to these questions—the Citizenship Clause, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment today as follows: 

“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.” 

This provision echoed similar language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, approved by Congress a mere two months earlier over President Johnson’s veto.

Through this new clause, Howard sought to overturn Dred Scott and guarantee equal citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil. Howard conceded that there were small groups that would be excluded, consistent with well-established law, such as the children of foreign diplomats and certain Native American tribes. 

However, Howard was clear about the core purpose of the new Clause: “to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of . . . gentlemen . . . who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.”

Fair enough. But what did this new provision mean for the U.S.-born children of resident immigrants? 

Quite a bit. 

While the Citizenship Clause was paradigmatically about African Americans, the clause’s text and history confirm that it was about much more than that—namely, equal citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of race, color or parental origin.

Opponents of the Citizenship Clause expressed anxieties about the effects of the clause on the U.S.-born children of unpopular immigrant populations, such as the Chinese out west and the Gypsies in the east, with Senator Edgar Cowan—a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania—using especially unflattering rhetoric to describe the Gypsies as “people who invade [Pennsylvania’s] borders; . . . who pay no taxes; . . . and who do nothing, . . . but . . . settle as trespassers wherever they go.”


TRESPASSERS, EH?
THAT'S WHAT MANY CALLED THOSE PILGRIMS!

THE ARTICLE ENDS WITH THIS:
"The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the Republican Party’s greatest achievements. With it, Republicans continued to write Lincoln’s promise of “a new birth of freedom” into our Constitution and lead a Second Founding of our republic. 

Birthright citizenship was a key part of the Republican program. 
Before resolving to eliminate it through constitutional amendment (as some propose) or simply read it out of our Constitution (as Donald Trump suggests), it’s worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the important place that this concept has in our nation’s constitutional story."

SO, BOTTOM LINE?
IF THIS "NO MORE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP" BECOMES A REALITY, EXPECT A HUGE PUSH TO MAKE IT APPLY TO ALL, EVEN MAYBE RETROACTIVELY!
SOME GOP GUY WILL LIKELY BE THE ONE THAT COMES UP WITH RETROACTIVE, HOPING AGAINST HOPE TO CULL THE REGISTERED VOTERS.

IT MAY JUST BE THE WAY THE TRIBES GET ALL THEIR LAND BACK!

SEE, THEY CAN PROVE THE BOATS LANDED ILLEGALLY! 

HOW WOULD THAT FEEL TO THOSE OF YOU ROOTING FOR TRUMP?

MAYBE HE COULD START A L'IL KINGDOM FOR THE "MASTER RACE" SOMEWHERE ELSE?

MITTENS ROMULUS MIGHT FIGHT HIM FOR THAT.
I'D PAY TO SEE THE FIRST ROUND!

~i;-)



_____________________________________



POSTSCRIPT:
COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THIS BUT OF URGENT IMPORTANCE... AS I SAID BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) IS CONSIDERING ALLOWING HIGHER LEVELS OF RADIATION HERE IN AMERICA, BECAUSE OF THAT BAT GUANO INSANE THEORY OF HORMESIS.
HORMESIS FOLKS SAY RADIATION IS GOOD FOR US, REMEMBER.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE GLOWING IN THE DARK AND IF HAVING CANCER IS NOT ON YOUR BUCKET LIST, PLEASE GO TO THE LINK BELOW AND TELL THE NRC (POLITELY, INTELLIGENTLY!) TO FORGET THAT IDEA!
AND, AS i SAID BEFORE, DO SO USING YOUR REAL NAMES, NOT ANONYMOUSLY.
BE BRAVE, CADETS!
DO IT FOR YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN.

 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2015-0057-0086