Good Grief: NY Times Digs Deep Into Justice’s Histories To Protect Birthright Citizenship For Illegals

I don’t know what is more disturbing: the narrative baiting or the lengths the Fish Wrap went to

In Supreme Court Justices’ Histories, a Story of Immigration in America

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s father was a baby when he and his mother left their home in Italy bound for New Jersey, where he later became a U.S. citizen.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s ancestors’ passage remains unknown, but her relatives were enslaved in Georgia, becoming citizens only through the bloodshed of the Civil War.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s great-grandparents emigrated in the late 1800s from a mining town in what is now Slovakia, bound for Pennsylvania coal country. In the United States, the couple had a son — the chief justice’s grandfather. Albert Podrasky was born before his parents were naturalized, but he was nevertheless an American, guaranteed by the nation’s principle of birthright citizenship.

So, Alito’s father did not get birthright citizenship, he applied for and got it. Podrasky was not yet a citizen, but, with his legal immigration he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Possibly the dumbest justice of all times, Brown Jackson, had her ancestors, if they were slaves, were exactly the people Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was talking about.

With the case approaching, The New York Times scoured passenger ship manifests, census records, voter registration lists and naturalization petitions and interviewed scholars and genealogists in an effort to better understand the nine Americans who will decide the issue.

The justices’ stories show how the nation’s changing laws and attitudes toward newcomers have guided waves of immigration, determining who is allowed to become a citizen and contribute to the American story.

For most of the the time since the passage of the 14th post Civil War it was understood that birthright citizenship did not apply to aliens, meaning foreigners, legal or illegal, unless they were in fact subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning, political jurisdiction. Who do they pay allegiance to? When illegals, fake asylum seekers, visitors, people on work or student visas are flying the flags of their home countries, well, their political allegiance is to their old country.

The one that gets me is that 1st paragraph in the above excerpt: this is the same paper, like most, who couldn’t be bothered to do any investigation into Biden’s mental issues, into Hunter’s laptop, into Benghazi, into what Obamacare would do to health insurance and healthcare, into why Democrat run colleges are charging so much for so little, into why America’s school systems are failing so often, into how elected politicians are getting so damned rich in office, into all the fraud in Minnesota (and so many other places), who George Floyd really was, into the origins of COVID, and so much more. Things that matter heavily. Yet, they can do deep dives into the backgrounds of the justices all for their pro-illegal alien narrative.

And, let’s not forget, the who idea is to make the kids citizens so that the parents won’t be deported, and will be give citizenship. Or, at least permanent resident status, for which Dem states, cities, and counties will let them vote. And they’ll vote Democrat

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Post a Comment or Leave a Trackback

4 Responses to “Good Grief: NY Times Digs Deep Into Justice’s Histories To Protect Birthright Citizenship For Illegals”

  1. Aliassmithsmith says:

    Birthright citizenship has not been successfully challenged for 150 years. King Trump really does believe he can do whatever he wants

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Today, your Mad King will sit in the audience at SCOTUS sharing his famous ‘glare’ at the justices!!

    What a clever putz he is.

    • Dana says:

      Mt smith² wrote:

      Birthright citizenship has not been successfully challenged for 150 years. King Trump really does believe he can do whatever he wants

      That marriage was only between one man and one woman had not been successfully challenged for thousands of years didn’t stop some perverts from trying to allow it between two ‘men’ or two ‘women’ does not seem to have bothered you. That prenatal infanticide was illegal and immoral had not been successfully challenged for a hundred year, but the stupid partisans really did believe they could do whatever they wanted.

      But, it’s April the First, so Happy Liberal Partisans Day!

  3. Dana says:

    Clearly, I’m the one who should be involved in this, because my family helped create the United States! My first American ancestor arrived in 1620, and signed the Mayflower Compact; I have a couple of ancestors who fought in our Revolutionary War.

    On my father’s side, the family were already living in Hawai’i, specifically Mau’i, when the United States annexed the Kingdom; we were already here when Hawai’i became part of the United States. Both of my parents were serving in the United States Army when they met.

Leave a Reply to Elwood P. Dowd

Pirate's Cove