From my new column in VDARE.com on the doctrine of jus soli:
Abuse of the current American citizenship regulations permits bizarrely self-recursive forms of chain migration. For example, the Chinese scion born on American soil can eventually grow up to import his own parents as immigrants under our “family reunification” law. They, in turn, can bring in their own parents and plunk them in public housing for seniors and put their health care on Medicare’s tab. It’s like a Confucian conman version of that old Robert Heinlein science fiction story, All You Zombies, about a man with a time machine who turns out to be his own grandpa.
Posts
16 comments:
This is an important piece and should read closely and absorbed by Republican political operatives.
Over 75% of Indians make less than 42 cents per hour. That is $1000 a year.
Indian immigrants bring mom and dad over to live for a few months, set them up on SSI making $5K, $10K per year, then send them home to live in india.
In India, Mom and Dad can buy a house and have 2-5 full time servants to take care of them on their SSI checks alone!
What's not to like?
Guy leaves his family and everyone he knows behind, goes halfway 'round the world to make his fortune in America.
Then this "wrong" is "righted" on our dime, to his benefit, even though he's the one who dis-unified his family in the first place.
It would make far more sense for us to close the borders under the aegis of "family unity." We have a duty to stop tragedies before they happen, if we can. Right?
The two things you need to know about the Wong Kim Ark case are:
1) His parents were legal immigrants.
2) The government tried to use a law passed 10 years after his American birth to deprive him of his citizenship. This interpretation made it an ex post facto law, which is prohibited under article I, section 9 of the constitution.
This case clearly says that any change to jus solis can not be retroactive to people already born in the US. It may (or may not) say that children born in the US to legal permanent residents are automatically citizens. But the case says nothing about children born to illegal immigrants, tourists or temporary workers in the US. This is something Congress can decide under the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. It would not require a constitutional amendment.
Steve said: "Is jus soli protected by the 14th Amendment, or could it be modified by legislation (as happened in Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)?"
And Ireland.
It does roll off the tongue better than "anchor ankle-biters."
Don't expect anyone east of Colorado or Texas to get it, though. Moving out west really opens your eyes to how hysterical Mexican kids behave. The males must adopt a posture of machismo later on to compensate for their super drama-queen stage as boys.
Parents from most other groups (but especially blacks) would smack him and tell him to stop his shameful faggot histrionics. It's amazing how Mexican parents let that crap go on and on even in the most public of places like a supermarket or crowded park.
So add that to the list of things that the taxpayers will have to provide the illegals' kids with -- muzzles and straitjackets.
Given the pathetic state of the law and Constitution (it is whatever the Law School Deans and Media and various justices say it is), I see no reason why ex-post facto laws cannot be brought into existence.
Not the least of which is the money question. As tax receipts collapse in what Pimco calls "the new normal" (i.e. semi-permanent recession, growth rate at about 1% or so, not even keeping pace with population growth) ... AND the imminent collapse of Mexico (Bolton predicts Mexico's government collapsing within a year) ... masses of people wanting government money is incompatible with spending what little is available on people here.
Job creation at the extreme, with the margin gone, can only be accomplished by kicking out illegals and their descendants. Someone will ride that horse.
Wow, this is not news. I remember a Taiwanese researcher telling me back in the early 90's that Chinese immigrants had been doing this for years. In fact, so many of the immigration chickens now coming home to roost visibly took flight decades ago. Things written in 1994 still seem like they were written for an editorial page in 2010.
Unrestricted population growth started off as a localized cancer, but now it has metastasized beyond the usual settlement areas. I fear the patient -- our nation -- is doomed.
Once some of these welfare migrants obtain SSI and a section eight apartment they're free to do as they please; there's no monitoring system. Many travel overseas for months at a time, their SSI being electronically deposited in their bank account. Other relatives may be living in the apartment; sometimes they've been in the business of subletting it on the sly. Having worked in the field of social services and dealt with these people, I was always amazed at how many of these welfare recipients were able to travel around the world for months at a time. When asked how they could afford airfare to go to the other side of the globe they always said it was paid for by relatives. Apparently all these welfare recipients have rich relatives. The foreign scammers make our own domestic ones look paltry.
Richburg is an African-American, the author of the brave book Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa.
To nitpick a bit, Steve, the title of Richburg's book is Out of America. I'm saying this just because that's the second time I've seen you refer to it as Out of Africa.
From your column Mr. Sailer:
"The Democratic Party is devoted to the current iniquitous system for one simple reason: it generates more Democrats."
I disagree. The Democratic party is also devoted to the current system because they're leftists and MUST be non-discriminatory. In other words, they're not just calculating and rational about this as you suggest. Their ideology demands they support the current system and squash objections to the current system.
"To nitpick a bit, Steve, the title of Richburg's book is Out of America. I'm saying this just because that's the second time I've seen you refer to it as Out of Africa."
Could this be a tad...Freudian, here Steve?
"The Democratic Party is devoted to the current iniquitous system for one simple reason: it generates more Democrats."
Absolutely not true. A politician has so much foresight he tries to change the electorate 18+ years into the future? Really?
Democrats support mass immigration for the same reason Republicans do: big corporations make them do it, and will replace them if they don't.
A related point:
A few Chinese anchor babies is really no big deal. When they do come here, they work hard, don't commit crime, and pay a lot of taxes, and don't have many kids.
Also, to actually get that free public education in a good school district, they'll have to buy a house/condo from a native Californian and pay property taxes on it every year.
I disagree. The Democratic party is also devoted to the current system because they're leftists and MUST be non-discriminatory. In other words, they're not just calculating and rational about this as you suggest. Their ideology demands they support the current system and squash objections to the current system.
You can't be right, because the current system is discriminatory. It discriminates against Americans in that Americans do not have a reciprocal "right" to the resources of other nations. The current system enforces a double standard in this regard. Double standards are discriminatory.
It's particularistic, not principled.
Absolutely not true. A politician has so much foresight he tries to change the electorate 18+ years into the future? Really?
Many politicans, and even more of those who fund their campaigns, are 5,770 years old. They will turn 5,771 on September 8.
But even setting that aside, I don't get your point. It would seem extremely likely that politicians of all stripes would have the foresight to do all sorts of things with the intent of causing future repercussions.
Post a Comment