OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

Not only I agree with Trump and former assistant AG for Reagan, Mark Levine, I also believe that children of tourists, who come legally, are not entitled to US citizenship, if both parents are foreign citizens

Posted on | August 20, 2015 | 18 Comments

Not only I agree with Trump and former AG for Reagan, Mark Levine, I also believe that children of tourists, who come legally, are not entitled to US citizenship, if both parents are foreign citizens

By Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

I was asked to comment on the issue of the birthright citizenship.

Virginia in VA
25 approved
Submitted on 2015/08/19 at 6:44 pm

Orly, as a constitutional lawyer, can you tell us your view of whether “Birthright Citizenship” is constitutional and whether children of illegals can be citizens? It would be great to know your view.
Jeb Bush Trashes Trump In Spanish TV Interview – Promises Amnesty. Taitz to Jeb Bush: why don’t you run for president of Mexico, you’ll get high poll numbers there

So, here is my response.

First of all, let’s look at the recent decision of the Supreme Court on Obamacare. The law stated that individuals covered by state exchanges can get subsidies from the federal government. It clearly stated “state exchanges”. However 5 of 9 judges of the Supreme Court  did not go by the black letter law, rather, they went by the intend of the legislature. They claimed that the intent was to give subsidizes to everyone, not just ones, who enrolled through the state exchanges.

So, let’s look at the intent of the legislature at the time the 14 th amendment was passed into law. The legislature wanted to grant citizenship to blacks, who resided in this country for generations and did not have citizenship in any other country. The legislature did not envision citizens of foreign countries flooding this country and demanding US citizenship for their US born children. Just as children of the US citizens, born abroad, automatically get US citizenship based on “jus sanguinis,” the citizenship of their parents, similarly, citizens of Mexico, China and other countries   automatically get citizenship of Mexico, China and other countries based on their “jus sanguinis,” the citizenship of their parents, even if they are born in the US.

Furthermore, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the 1th amendement, specifically stated that it did not apply to foreigners and aliens.

So, the intent was clear, not to grant the US citizenship to children of foreign citizens.

Further, aside from the intent, the black letter law supports Trump’s, Walker’s, Cruz’s and Paul’s assertion. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the child has to be born in the US and be subject to the US jurisdiction, not just be born in the US. Some are saying that the fact of being born in the US is sufficient for being subject to the US jurisdiction. If this would be the case, then the law would just state “born in the US”, it would not state “born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction”. Jurisdiction means allegiance. A child, born in the US, whose parents are both foreign citizens, has allegiance to the countries of origin of his parents and he is subject to the jurisdiction of those nations.

Proponents of the practice of the anchor baby citizenship point to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). However, this case expressly qualified the defendant’s right to citizenship based on “permanent residence” of his parents. It did not relate to children of  illegal aliens and children of tourists.

So, based on the intent of the legislature and the black letter law, birthright citizenship relates only to:

1. children born in the US, who have at least one parent who is a US citizen.

2. Wong Kim Ark possibly extended this to children, whose parents have a permanent US residency status, namely Green Card.

As such, children born in the US to non-citizens, follow the legal status of their parents. They inherit the foreign citizenship of their parents and immigration status of their parents:

1. a child born to a tourist, who has a 6 months tourist visa, should receive a 6 month tourist visa and has to leave together with his parents after 6 months.

2. A child born in the US to foreign citizen parents, who are here for a  year on a work visa,  are entitled to a foreign citizenship of their parents and a 1 year visa in the US.

3. A child of a foreign student, who has a  4 year visa to finish his degree, is entitled to the foreign citizenship of his parents and a 4 year visa in the US.

4. A child of illegal aliens born in the US, is entitled to the foreign citizenship of his parents, and just as his parents, is not entitled to stay in the US.

It is important to note that according to the latest Rasmussen poll, the public is fed up with the anchor baby practices and the birthright tourism and by majority of votes want to end it. Recently, in the neighboring city of Irvine FBI and ICE raided a large ring of criminals, who brought in thousands of pregnant women from China, who are engaged in birthright tourism. Their babies get the US citizenship,  they go back to China and come back to the US around age 14-15. They automatically get enrolled in high schools here. They get free education, health-care, all of their social needs are met. They enroll in state universities and take the spots of children, who are US citizens, whose parents worked all their lives and paid taxes to support these universities.

We are seeing a flood of illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America. True numbers are becoming known to the public and by admission of the former Mexican ambassador we have around 30 million illegal aliens. Every year 400,000  children are born to these illegal aliens. Because vast majority of illegal aliens live under the poverty line, these children get free health care, food stamps, housing, education and other social aid. Their whole families received aid based on those anchor babies. We, law abiding US citizens, are robbed of billions of dollars due to birthright tourism and anchor baby practices. The law says it is illegal and the public is saying enough is enough. This is one of the reasons Trump is far ahead in GOP primary and he is now beating Clinton in the key swing state of Florida, he is in a statistical tie with Clinton in IA and nationwide.   Trump is already beating Clinton among male voters and white voters nationwide. He is catching up among female and minority voters. I believe that the recent phenomenon of Trump and Sanders rising, shows that the nation is fed up with lawlessness and corruption in all three branches of our government. Trump and Sanders rise might be the harbinger of the Second American revolution. People are taking their country back from the grip of lawlessness and corruption.

Comment from Dr. Ron Pollard

As you know, there is no “Birthright citizenship” mentioned in the Constitution. It is a concept fromn British common law which was nullified by the Declarartion of Independence and the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment was strictly to grant citizenship to all Blacks whether they were former slaves or born to former slaves. They originally were granted citizenship by the 13th Amendment but the Dredd Scott decision improperly removed it and the 14th Amendment restored it to any Black currently living on or born on US soil. 
Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal immigrants.
You are right in that children born to Mexican mothers in this country illegally or temporarily have Mexican citizenship at birth and therefore cannot be granted US citizenship because thnat would give them dual citizenship which is prohibitied under Immigration and Naturalization Laws (but has never been enforced in the last 60 years).
BUT, the big forgotten aspect of this is that any pregnant foreign woman who intentionally comes to the US for the sole purpose of producing an anchor baby is committing immigration fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States Government.
Additionally, ANY person intending to immigrate to the US must prove that will be self-sufficient or prove that they will receive material support from a US citizen who acts as their sponsor.
It should be treated at least the same way that “Green Card Marriages” were outlawed.
Ron
A controversial comment from Jon Spokes, Advertising executive from Washington Times
Orly: I agree with what you said about the babies of illegals who steal into the country are attempting to steal what they have no legal right to possess.  I find interessting the views of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio because, on the surface, based on their own arguments, tthree of them (counting on  Carley Fiorina) only Ted Cruz can pass the Constitutional muster, and then only by a hair. Cruz’s mother was a natural born US citizen and while the Cruz’s resided in Canada when Cruz was born, and his father was not an American citizen while his mother was.  In Rubio and Jindal’s case, both families were emigrants.  Neither paternal parties applied for citizenship until after Marco Rubio and Bobby Jndal were born.  Therefore, both Marco and Bobby became citizens before the parents.  If parental citizenship is a prerequsite for the claims of citizenship of the offspring, we find both Rubio and Jindal are native born but not natural born.  Fiorina, like Clinton is natural born but neither woman meets the Article II requirement that they be a man.
    The left argues that the 22 references to the President being a man appears in Article II is because women could not vote in 1787. 
    The fact that is so does not change the fact that Article II mandates that the President be a man.  It was simple to change that requirement by simply amendingt Article II.  Which, of course, they attempted in 2005.
https://www.jonchristianryter.com/2004/112004.html.  The left, using Jon McCain and Orrin Hatch to pretend the law they were attempting to ram through Congress was to allow naturalized citizens run for preisent when its sole purpose was to degenderize Article two.  Congress would not proffer the McCan-Hatch amendment.
    Walter Mondale’s campaign manager contacted me to tell me I didn’t know what I was talking about becauae, he said, when women were given the right to vote they were given the right to run for the presidency.  I asked him to show me the language in the 19th Amendment (three short paragraphs) and I would amend my article.  Without offering to show me where it said women could hold the office of President, he cursed me and hung up.  Clinton isn’t eliginle to run for the office of President, nor can Fiorina.  Nor could Sarah Palin. And, in the 2005, when the left tried to sneak that measure through as a constitutional amendment resolution and couldn’t.  The left, when they control both houses, simply ignore the Constituion and do what they want to do.
Jon Spokes
Advertising Manager

NATIONAL WEEKLY EDITION
3600 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Orly
You have sounded the alarm with this email
Hopefully we can get the blacks to understand they are being treated as second class citizens with all the entitlements and jobs being granted to illegals. The black lady at Huntington Park council meeting gets it!!
Thanks for all you are doing!
Buddy Cox
The people that live along the Mexican border as I did for 6 years, understand the term “anchor baby” and how ridiculous it is to have the maternity wards filled with mothers who got across the border with the objective of having a baby born and become a citizen!
It is an insane practice that needs to be stopped immediately!
Is there anyone who has standing who could initiate a lawsuit to stop the practice!
If the border were secure this could not happen.
If the immigration laws were enforced this probably could not happen.
Jerry Peyton
Category: Uncategorized
Tags: > > > > > >

Comments

18 Responses to “Not only I agree with Trump and former assistant AG for Reagan, Mark Levine, I also believe that children of tourists, who come legally, are not entitled to US citizenship, if both parents are foreign citizens”

  1. Paula Hoehn
    August 20th, 2015 @ 8:03 am

    Dear Orly,

    Thank you for so succinctly listing the distinctions about birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment, “Wong Kim Ark” and the distinctions under “children born in the US to non-citizens, follow the legal status of their parents”.

    ——–
    Paula Hoehn

  2. Extirpates
    August 20th, 2015 @ 9:30 am

    IMHO, that is the correct interpretation!

  3. Steve Wittlake
    August 20th, 2015 @ 10:11 am

    Orly

    I have read your comments regarding Birth right
    citizenship and wonder if you would care to comment on Status of Ted Cruz as a natural born citizen. He was born in Calgary Canada of parents named Eleonor Elisabeth Darragh who I would describe as a natural born citizen and Rafael B. Cruz a Cuban born in Cuba. They have a son named Ted Cruz who was born 22 Dec 1970
    in Calgary Canada who is running for president against Trump. He thinks he is a natural born citizen but I think he is totally incorrect. They lived in Canada for about 8 years of which 4 were before birth and 4 were after birth of Ted Cruz. Both seemed to have prior
    marriages and there is a divorce listed for parents of Ted on 13 Feb 1997 in Harris County Texas. Rafael is listed as voting in Calgary which means they probably took out citizenship
    in Canada.
    I have copies of Birth record for Ted and revocation of birth record for Ted. I previously forwarded the two to you about a week ago but if you need me to send them to you again I will send them.
    You are free to give Donald Trump a copy of this correspondence if you desire. You might remember me from the McCain Obama fights regarding the natural born issue for both McCain and Obama. I fought had for 5 years and I am trying to fight hard against Ted Cruz.

    Steve
    swittlake@comcast.net

  4. EyeballNews
    August 20th, 2015 @ 10:46 am

    100% makes sense

  5. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    August 20th, 2015 @ 11:04 am

    I don’t believe he is eligible

  6. Dawn
    August 20th, 2015 @ 11:19 am

    Not sure I ever heard about this but it is big news. Trump’s sister worked for President Reagan.

    Trump’s sister had some career but avoids the spotlight.

    https://madworldnews.com/reagan-did-trumps-sister/

  7. Davey Crockett
    August 20th, 2015 @ 1:19 pm

    Boy, Orly, you have this info down!

    This is why Trump has really been effective with his campaign…

    It’s due to his coming right out and discussing the things that Americans are really tired of hearing and seeing.

    This is OUR Country…so they have to follow OUR laws, whether they like it or not!

    And I think Trumper is waking up some lefties, too!

  8. Davey Crockett
    August 20th, 2015 @ 1:26 pm

    If the father of Cruz was born in Cuba, that makes him ineligible for that one item, if I read your post, correctly, Mr Wittlake?

    And since we know that the father of O was born in Kenya, then, that would make O ineligible, also!

  9. Veritas
    August 20th, 2015 @ 1:34 pm

    Very troubling to hear Bill O’Reilly opine that “birthright citizenship” for illegals is a done deal due to his understanding of Supreme Court decisions.

    One only need call to mind that he is ALSO SURE that Obama’s B/C creds are in order as his people “have seen them.”

    That is about as convincing as Hillary saying SHE scoured her own emails for private ones and work related ones.

  10. Jim Buzzell
    August 20th, 2015 @ 1:48 pm

    And also consider this:
    What’s required to become the President or Vice President of the United States of America?
    1. Be born in the USA to two US citizen parents (that’s with and s), after the adoption of our US Constitution,
    2. Not be a naturalized US citizen,
    3. Be 35 years or older,
    4. Reside in the US for the previous 14 years.

    It’s simple folks, a candidate can spin it any way they want, but it matters how they interpret our Constitution; is it their way or the highway for those of you who understand what our Founding Fathers wanted and what the US Supreme Court has codified over the years since the adoption of our Constitutional Republic. Vattel’s Law of Nations reigns in our constitution. Reference to Law of Nations is documented in Article I no need of further proof. NBC cannot be legislated, citizenship can.

  11. Veritas
    August 20th, 2015 @ 4:30 pm

    CARAMBA! these invaders can bring their pregnant women

    (most are their concubines and are de facto servants of the men who sometimes have paid the women’s fathers to have them)

    and have children who are automatically “citizens”

    ……because the 14th amendment has been mangled and applied in a way contravening the Supreme Court’s findings that the parents be LEGAL with 1) a PERMANENT DOMICILE (which illegals invaders cannot have) and 2) are “CARRYING ON BUSINESS”…the only “business” a trespasser could have would be ILLEGAL.

    All the hundreds of thousands who have become automatic “gringos” may be surprised that their

    “citizenship”

    is

    Unconstitutional.

  12. Veritas
    August 20th, 2015 @ 4:49 pm

    This is part of above post:
    —
    MEXICAN CARTELS RUN AZ DESERT…

    70 Miles Inside Border…

    America Doesn’t Have Operational Control of US Territory…

  13. Denise
    August 20th, 2015 @ 4:59 pm

    I saw an interesting post earlier. A woman named Lisa commented on yahoo that it is against the law to profit or benefit from your own or another person’s criminal act. Certainly USA citizenship would be a benefit received from the parent’s criminal act of sneaking into the USA.

  14. Kevin J Lankford
    August 20th, 2015 @ 5:00 pm

    @ Orly;

    I have been trying to get across these very facts for several years even referring to the Constitutional debates during the ratification of the 14th amendment,on a number of sites, to little avail. Some even refusing my comments on the matter.

    Not having the benefit of higher education, it is still quite clear and indisputable from simply researching what is within these records, the composition of the introductory clause of the 14 amendment changed nothing of what was already the accepted requirements for citizen, or the more stringent requirement for “Natural Born” citizenship. In no way does it imply any form of birthright citizenship simply for birth on U.S. soil. Though it is quite easy to see how many, less comprehending, could be lulled into believing that is what it means if exposure to the truth is prohibited.

    It is my contention also that the judges, during the wong kim ark trial for one reason or another subverted the 14 amendment when granting him citizenship, as it in no way lends itself to their decision. I feel their position grants them nothing nor should be consider as legitimate precedent when it so obviously defies intent.

    I would also like to answer the question (I say answer because I feel it is not just base on opinion) of cruz’s eligibility, and I feel you would say the same. THere is just no way one can be a “Natural Born” U.S. citizen being born of a father or mother with foreign allegiance.
    “Natural Born” citizenship is a circumstance of birth, just as dual citizenship. Both are mutually exclusive, and as in cruz’s case, his renouncing his canadian citizenship, does nothing to change the circumstance of his birth, which was to parents of differing citizenship, not to mention his place of birth, which so many fools think that is all that matters.

    I was wondering why my comment on this matter submitted under “Jeb bush Trashes Trump”, in which I made a response to “Veritas” comment was deleted.

  15. Jerry G
    August 20th, 2015 @ 5:11 pm

    Ted Cruz is no dope and he knows darn well he is not a natural born citizen and ineligible for the presidency. He like the other two ineligibles figure that if Obama could get away with it why can’ they. After all the Republicans didn’t lift a finger to stop Obama when they knew he was ineligible.

  16. Jerry G
    August 20th, 2015 @ 5:23 pm

    To add to my reply about Cruz’s ineligibility not only didn’t the Republicans lift a finger to stop Obama’s usurpation of the presidency but the Court system was even more criminal in their refusal to hear cases challenging Obama’s eligibility. As Orly sadly knows. So Cruz might very well be nominated to run for president.

  17. Phil stone
    August 21st, 2015 @ 4:16 am

    Cruz could be just trying to add to his campaign war chest for future senate runs and personal profit.

  18. Jerry G
    August 21st, 2015 @ 4:45 am

    Instead of vying for the presidency Cruz should concentrate on a cabinet position under the next Republican president whoever he might be and whenever he takes office.

Leave a Reply