America's bravest Congressman Steve King vows To take On birthright Citizenship

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), fresh off of a massive GOP victory earlier this month that is looking likely to make him a key pilot of the next Congress's immigration policy as likely chairman of a House subcommittee on immigration, recently explained how he plans to take on birthright citizenship which is the immigration issue of paramount importance to the survival of the America we know and lovenoire.

Here's what Congressman King opined to the Des Moines Cityview about his (intended) plans to repeal a clause in the 14th Amendment that overturned the landmark Dred Scott case and promised American citizenship to freed slaves: "The framers did not consider the babies of illegals when they framed the 14th amendment because we didn't have immigration law at the time so they could not have wanted to confer automatic citizenship on the babies of people who were unlawfully in the United States," King said. King wants Congress to pass a ban on "anchor babies," place it in statute, and wait for the other side to challenge the prohibition in the courts.

If that approach fails, King signals a willingness to embark on the incredibly onerous task of amending the Constitution, a process that would require ratification by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. But King and the majority of Americans believe that the issue warrants such an effort.
King opined that the framers of the amendment intended to include exceptions in the its wording, "including [of] certain Indian tribes and babies born to ambassadors or visitors." That's why they included the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said King, who recently appeared to argue that undocumented immigrants were simply not subject to U.S. law. King won't be alone in the venture, as some have predicted that the Republican-controlled Congress -- which has representatives on both sides of the debate -- will attempt to tackle the contentious issue as soon as it convenes in January.

Senate GOPers have been also been outspoken about opening the 14th Amendment to review. Senators Kyl (Ariz.), Graham (S.C), Coburn (Okla.), Grassley (Iowa) and McConnell (Ky.), among the most powerful Republicans in the chamber, have all come out against birthright citizenship. Americans should remember to support these courageous Senators and keep them in office until birthright citizenship is a thing of the past as it is in many other countries.

On the state level, legislators in at least 13 states have begun drafting legislation that would seek to remove birthright citizenship guarantees from their specific laws.

This is a wonderful and long overdue development. We need to let all of our representatives and senators know that we expect them to support King's initiative.

Dee Perez-Scott misuses the term "Reconquista"

Dee Perez-Scott, a member of the Reconquista Movement to restore the Southwest to Mexican control, encourages and supports illegal aliens and open borders but is in a consistent state of denial when it comes to the existence of the movement itself. She, in desperation, tries to characterize the groups opposed to the Obama administration as the real reonquistas. But, you see, reconquistas refers to the conquests not those who perpetrate them, the very misuse she took issue with in an earlier post. Maybe a repeat of what I wrote earlier will sink in this time.

•The term Reconquista (in English, "reconquest") was popularized by Mexican writers Carlos Fuentes and Elena Poniatowska to describe the demographic and cultural presence of [illegal alien] Mexicans into the Southwestern United States.
• Reconquista (Mexico), a movement that desires the reconquest of formerly Mexican territory lost to the United States following the Annexation of Texas and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo
• Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council "They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over. …. We are here to stay."
• Excelsior- The national newspaper of Mexico "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."
• Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas. ----- "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population. ….. I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."
• Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party
"Remember 187 (proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non citizens) was the last gasp of white America in California."
• Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor
"We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this
country….I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."
• Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave."
• Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California."
• Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University: "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos…."

Interview #2 with Dee Perez-Scott -- the 14th Amendment

Ultima: I hope you found the blog transcript of my last interview with you to be fair and accurate.

Dee: I suppose I could nitpick the transcript but, yes, basically it reflects my views on the matter.

Ultima: Okay let’s move on to another topic. First, however, let me clear up one other issue. You have been quoted as saying, "I am as gentle as a grandmotherly lamb. I always remain civil and never name call". Somehow that doesn’t seem very truthful to me. Many of your posts (and those of your proxies who post on your blog) literally drip with venom and incivility. That means that any claim to being gentle as a lamb lacks credibility. There are many ways to be uncivil and name call. For example, recently you posted an image of six distinguished United States senators which you inscribed with the following legend, “hydro-head, hate-filled, racist Republicans.” Now if that is not name-calling, I don’t know what is. Had I recorded every similar episode from your long history of rants, incivility, and name-calling, you would be convicted a thousand times over by your own words. There would be such a large volume of those words and their repetition that the conclusion would be undeniable. To give you your dues, you seem to have a schizoid personality which allows you to post some factual news items without much if any spin. Then you turn right around and lose it, returning to your invective and name-calling mode. I can’t explain it any other way than to attribute it to a schizoid personality, unless you are just pretending when you seem reasonable. With those observations out of the way, let’s move on to the 14th Amendment controversy. As long as it is the law of the land, we all have a responsibility to adhere to it and no one to my knowledge has been able to do otherwise.

Dee: I won’t respond to your charge of incivility and name-calling except to point out that you have frequently responded in kind. As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, you are right; it is a part of the constitution and we all should act accordingly.

Ultima: At some point in the recent past, you seemed to suggest that the Constitution should not be changed but the fact of the matter is that the Constitution has been amended 27 times and there is at least one amendment out there, the Equal Rights Amendment for Women, that has still not received the necessary approval of 3/4ths of the states. There are likely to be more in the future and we are fortunate that the Founding Fathers made a provision for doing so. In recognition of the difficulty in gaining full approval of Constitutional Amendments, the current trend seems to be to rely on a legislative solution that would ultimately have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Dee: I don’t believe that is possible since the Court has already affirmed the meaning of the Amendment in 150 cases. It would therefore be a waste of time for Congress to take such an action.

Ultima: Some may think the 14th Amendment is “elegant in its simplicity” but the number of cases brought to test that simplicity would suggest otherwise. Usually the only way to correct a defective amendment is with another amendment to the U.S Constitution. However, another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.

Dee: I don’t believe that.

Ultima: There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change, like the present circumstances in which, unlike before the 1986 amnesty, 12 million illegal aliens now exist within our borders. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to moneyed land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution; because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are now fundamental to our political system.

Dee: Those two examples don’t quite seem to be the same as the presence of illegal aliens since some number of them, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Mexican and others have always been present in our country.

Ultima: Perhaps not but in the U.S., one of the strongest incentives for border violations is the 14th amendment which grants citizenship to anyone who is born in this country. “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry [birthright citizenship].” Since the current interpretation of the 14th promotes border violations, anyone who is interested in securing the borders needs to help find a way to achieve a more rational interpretation.

Dee: I think the current interpretation has withstood the tests of time and therefore I support it. There are other ways of securing the borders which we discussed in a previous interview.

Ultima: The authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words would bestow citizenship on the offspring of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, visa overstays, and temporary farm workers. If an act of Congress could be brought before the Supreme Court, the majority of the Justices might agree that times have indeed changed sufficiently to warrant a different view of the Amendment, especially in view of the fact that other most developed countries, with the exception of Canada, have already abandoned Jus Soli as the primary determiner of citizenship.

Dee: Do you really think it is likely that the Court would overturn all of those prior precedents?

Ultima: One of the cases often cited as evidence of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). This was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship. The legal question presented to Court was:
“[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China, but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
The Court ruled decisively, 6 – 2, in favor of Wong Kim Ark. But, since Ark’s parents were here legally, had a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S., and were carrying on a business, the Court did not address the question of the offspring of illegal aliens and tourists who had no such legal status or domicile.
The minority also argued that "it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power' . . . ." They thus reasoned that the majority opinion exactly contradicted the original intended meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Dee: This is all very interesting but it does not alter the difficulties faced by those who wish to have the Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of illegal aliens and tourists.

Ultima: I take it this is another area where you would not be supportive of any change that would improve border security by reducing the incentives for illegal entry.