An end to ‘birthright citizenship’?

President Trump is reportedly planning to end so-called ‘birthright’ citizenship, according to this source. 

Trump is quoted as saying that America is the only country in the world which gives automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, along with all the benefits thereof. The writers of the article contradict him, saying that more than 30 countries offer birthright citizenship, many of them ‘within the Western Hemisphere. True, but how many first world countries are in the Western Hemisphere? How many Latin American countries or Caribbean countries are desirable destinations for economic migrants? Not many, so the attempt to confuse matters by comparing our immigration policies with those of other Western hemisphere countries is disingenuous.

As with everything the President does, the left will raise a ruckus and try every means to derail this plan. Let’s hope their efforts fail.

 

3 thoughts on “An end to ‘birthright citizenship’?

  1. If thirty people jump off the edge of a cliff to their deaths, that does not mean I’m going to follow them. Quite the contrary. I know that Stephen Miller has taken a lot of heat over his advisory role in the Trump administration with regard to immigration policy. Since he has Jewish ancestors on his mother’s side, Miller is said to be a traitor to his people. No matter that what might or might not have been good for America when Miller’s ancestors fled to the US seeking political asylum back around the turn of the 20th Century, might or might not be good for America in our present generations. Nope! Once you start admitting this and that group, you always have to admit them. Or so says the left. Well, to hell with that!

    Like

    • Terry, yes, I’ve seen how the lefty media, the ‘lugenpresse’ is writing very critical pieces about Miller, and it goes without saying that those media sources believe that uncontrolled immigration is sacred, and that any curbs on it is hateful and draconian. I suppose the media think he is a traitor to his people because he’s the exception to those who are the biggest advocates of open borders and diversity.
      But it should be common sense that we base immigration policy on what’s good for the citizens, especially maintaining the balance in favor of the founding stock, the ‘posterity.’
      -VA

      Like

  2. It isn’t just the radical left who are giving Miller a hard time. His uncle on his mother’s side wrote an article for Politico back in August declaring him an “immigration hypocrite.” I wrote about it at my kids’ private blog a day or two afterward. I post my blog on the subject in full:

    Is Stephen Miller an “Immigration Hypocrite?”

    The word “hypocrite” is, today, like many other words in the language, often misused to describe a person or persons whose apparent world and life view one disagrees with. I myself have been labeled a hypocrite on more than one occasion during my time on our mortal coil. Indeed, only a few months back, in one of the more humorous instances in which someone called me a hypocrite, the conversation leading up to the charge went like this:

    Accuser: Why don’t you let your kids get drivers licenses before they are 17?

    Me: Because in today’s world, unlike the world you and I came of driving age in, there is a whole lot more traffic, and a whole lot more undisciplined and ungovernable teenagers on the roads. The danger of being involved in an accident – potentially a serious or fatal accident – is greatly increased since then.

    Accuser: Did your dad allow you to have a license when you were 16?

    Me: Yes.

    Accuser: Did you get a license and drive when you were 16?

    Me: Yes.

    Accuser: Then that makes you a hypocrite.

    Me: Ha, ha! Only if you don’t know what a hypocrite is. It might be helpful if you look the word up, then we can take it (the discussion) from there.

    End of conversation.

    A hypocrite is someone who feigns righteousness, or pretends to be something he is not. All human beings are, therefore, to one extent or another, hypocritical. I’m mindful of the wise saying that ‘human beings are walking contradictions.’ That includes us all. And yes, me too, as much as it pains me (not really) to admit it. Given that that is in fact the case, the answer to the question posed in the post title is, yes, strictly speaking, Stephen Miller is, like every other human being, a hypocrite. The question is more specific, though. Namely, is Stephen Miller an Immigration Hypocrite?

    Back to the conversation above:

    The obvious implication of what my interlocutor was telling me is that ‘if I (or anyone else) got his driver’s license at 16 years-old, then I am a hypocrite by virtue thereof if I make my own children wait at least another year to get their licenses.’

    The equally obvious answer to that Dumbassery is that (1) what I did as a half-wit 16 year-old kid is only relevant to the way I govern my own adolescent kids inasmuch as I am trying to protect them from endangering their lives and the lives of others on the roadways the way I did at times; (2) what my dad allowed and disallowed when I was 16 is totally irrelevant – this ain’t then, I ain’t him, and none of my children is me; (3) by definition I am not a hypocrite, at least in this particular case, because I’m not feigning self-righteousness nor pretending to be something I am not. My father might well have been more permissive with me in certain ways when I was growing up than I am with my own kids, but as a parent of eight children I can testify with absolute assurance that there are dozens of factors that play into that that no longer apply as they did in my adolescent years. The road congestion thing being merely one.

    The same basic philosophy possessed of my interlocutor is on display in this Politico article, written by Stephen Miller’s uncle, David S. Glosser. Mr. Glosser says his nephew is an Immigration Hypocrite because his Jewish forbears were permitted to enter the United States in 1903 as political asylum seekers or refugees. The family further engaged in chain migration when, after three years, the family patriarch and son had earned enough money to bring the rest of the family over.

    Throughout Mr. Glosser’s article it is evident that he believes, as with my interlocutor above, that whatever the immigration policy of our forbears at that particular time in the nation’s history must be the policy of today, otherwise we are all hypocrites. But his nephew’s sin is all the more egregious given that, on his mother’s side, Mr. Miller is descended from Jewish Ellis Islanders dating back to the turn of the twentieth century.

    Harken back to what I said above about all of that: this isn’t then, what they did in their time is irrelevant to today, and none of us is his forbears.

    Now, I could be wrong, but as far as I know Mr. Trump’s crackdown on immigration has no immediate bearing on current-day Jewish immigrants/asylum seekers, anymore so than it has on any other foreign national legally or illegally seeking a better life in the good ol’ U S of A. But even if it did, it would be well justified, given what we should have learned by now of subversive Jewish influence.

    Mr. Miller might well be an Immigration Hypocrite in accordance with the accusation his disgruntled uncle levels against him, but not on account of the particulars as we know them, he is not.

    In the first place, Stephen Miller has apparently been an Immigration restrictionist since High School. That is to say, he has been such all of his adult life, despite his family’s history. If we are to give Stephen the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is sincere in his belief that immigration ought to be restricted in the modern era, then he is no hypocrite on the matter. Again, that his forbears were Ellis Islanders in 1903 has nothing to do with it. Nations, like the individuals that make them up, have different needs at different times in their lives. The common refrain today is that ‘we are a nation of immigrants’ and that ‘immigration is our greatest strength.’ That is total hogwash, and Stephen Miller isn’t the only one who knows it.

    It is a lot closer to the truth of the matter to say that ‘immigration is our greatest weakness.’ This is because, as I’ve been at pains to point out for years, immigrants to the U. S. always and without exception carry a lot of baggage into the country with them that make them more or less incompatible with our customs and mores, and our form of government. Jews in particular because Jews are, as with Mr. Glosser, notoriously revolutionary in their world and life view.

    Mr. Glosser opines that when his ancestors arrived to these shores they were, in some ways, treated with suspicion and disallowed participation in certain things. Over time, however, these prohibitive laws and institutions were relaxed and ultimately disappeared, and Jews were gradually given full and equal access to all of America’s institutions. This scenario has played out over a hundred times in the past in Europe, and it stands to reason that it would play out as well in America since America was around 90% European ancestry at the turn of the twentieth century when Glosser’s ancestors first arrived.

    Jews have ultimately been kicked out of every country they have ever occupied in large numbers because of what Catholic intellectual, E. Michael Jones, calls the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is an anti-Christian spirit, hostile, first and foremost, to Christianity and its institutions. Anyone who has studied world history to any extent at all knows that what we refer to as Western Civilization is precisely the same thing as Christian Civilization. This used to be common knowledge, but no longer is. One very big reason this is no longer common knowledge is because Jews have wriggled their way into all sorts of leading positions where they may control the very thoughts of the idiot masses. This is not a debatable point, but certainly do your own due diligence on the matter and don’t take my word for it.

    As with the old Weimar Republic where hedonism was rampant, Jews have wriggled their way into powerful positions in the United States in numbers disproportionate to their percentage of the American population. Not all Jews are sexual and moral hedonists, of course, but the vast majority of Jews who occupy the seats of power and influence are, and that is the problem. Even the Jews themselves admit that Roe v Wade would never have occurred had it not been for the strong and ever present Jewish influence. They brag that homosexual “marriage” is a Jewish accomplishment. Meanwhile, it is a well known fact that Jews own Hollywood and the motion picture production industry. That would be bad enough in and of itself if it weren’t for the fact that Jews also own and operate the pornography industry. On top of all of that, Jews own and operate the vast majority of media outlets in the U. S. Jews also own the federal reserve bank and all international banking. Jews also (again, disproportionate to their numbers) occupy a great many of the teaching and faculty positions in America’s colleges and universities.

    I could go on, but given all of these facts and more, one would be an utter and absolute fool to believe that Jews do not occupy these sorts of professions for nefarious reasons. As I have said, we’re not their first willing victims, and undoubtedly we won’t be their last. What this all Portends in any case is not good. If history teaches us anything, it is evident that eventually Jews in America will push the envelope too far, too fast, as in Weimar Germany, and all hell will break loose. The country will need a scapegoat and it will find it in the Jews.

    At some level Mr. Glosser understands all of this; he knows that for the revolution to continue Jews must persist unimpeded in their goal to overthrow every last vestige of Christian society that survives in America today. He also knows that if ever enough deep-rooted Americans become wise to what his people have been up to for the last century, there will be hell to pay for the Jews. Mr. Glosser therefore believes it to be in his interest to paint his nephew as an Immigration hypocrite; he knows that to the extent immigration is restricted in the US, the Jewish push to wipe the record clean of the existence of a better country will, to that extent, be impeded, and Jews simply cannot stand for that as a people. But as always history again will repeat in this case: the over-zealous Jews will take things too far, and then,… sudden destruction.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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