Modern American slaughterhouses stun animals immediately before slaughter to minimize their suffering. In contrast, during halal butchering, the creature’s throat is slit while it is still conscious and an Islamic prayer is recited, so the practice is objectionable from an animal cruelty viewpoint, not to mention religious.
In addition, halal’s hidden taxes supply a source of funds for terror activities.
Once again, CBN is doing some of the best reporting about the dangers posed by hostile Islam.
PARIS — Halal food, food prepared according to Islamic sharia law, is becoming an increasing part of the Western diet and has become a multi-billion dollar global industry.
But CBN News has discovered that some of that money is funneled to groups tied to terrorism.
Muslim halal food is creeping into the food chain not only in France, but worldwide, including the United States.
CBN News visited a butcher shop in a Muslim area of Paris. But it was no ordinary butcher shop. Our camera operator was warned to stop taping.
Why would a butcher shop care if it was being photographed? One reason, according to an Islamic expert we consulted, may have been that our camera operator, who is not a Muslim, was unclean and this was a halal butcher shop.
Halal is the Arabic term meaning legal or permissible. For meat to be halal, a Muslim must chant, “In the name of Allah; Allah is the Greatest,” before slitting the throat of a fully conscious animal with a knife, and while facing the direction of Mecca.
The Fight Against Halal
The value of the halal food market in France alone is estimated at $7 billion, and has doubled in five years. France’s second largest fast food chain, Quick, now serves halal-only menus in 22 of its restaurants, targeting France’s large Muslim population.
But Quick’s halal burger stands in France are almost completely owned by the French government, which means the government, whose constitution mandates strict secularism, is in the religious food business.
Leading the fight against Quick’s sale of halal food is Charles Aslangul, a 21-year old city councilman, college student, and president of the Republican Order.
“We respect all religions, but I want to maintain the wall between the French state and the religious, and between a state-owned company and a religious food product. This should not happen with public money,” he told CBN News.
When Aslangul began his campaign, he said the media treated him like a fascist. He was eventually charged with hate speech. A court found him innocent, and now the young French politician is suing Quick for false accusation.
“Islam is trying to impose itself in the public area. I am not stigmatizing Islam. I am simply describing the situation when Islam’s radical wing tries to impose itself over our republican laws,” he explained.
A Shill for Sharia, Terrorism?
So what’s the big deal about halal food? To some Frenchmen who are seeing the growing Islamization of their country, it’s a very big deal.
“Islam is introducing sharia into our society and that’s not clear for people,” Alain Wagner, a French activist with the Alliance Against Sharia, said. “When you see halal food in shops you think, ‘Oh, it’s just a kind of food.’ No. it’s sharia.”
According to some experts, a portion of the proceeds from halal food sales in France go to groups tied to terrorism.
When a French consumer buys Halal food, part of the price paid goes as a fee to Halal Islamic experts. Some of those experts are certified by the UOIF, the Union of the Islamic Organizations in France, which the Simon Wiesenthal Center reports has strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational political organization that supports terrorism.
When French journalist and author Alexandre del Valle began investigating how the Muslims Brotherhood was attempting a mafia-style takeover of France’s Halal food industry, his life was threatened.
In Australia, someone painted a “Say No to Burqas” mural on a public wall, which got the local Sons of Allah into a raging froth. Oddly, when protests occurred against the sentiment of women’s equality, the media called the confrontation an “anti-racism rally.”
Wouldn’t a more accurate description be a “pro-sexism riot”?
Sadly, Australia has inflicted Muslim immigration upon its civil society, just as Europe and the United States foolishly have done in some of the worst public policy decisions ever.
A nation can have women’s rights and safety, or it can have Muslim immigration; it cannot have both.
The similarities and differences of the Tucson shooting and the Virginia Tech mass murder are instructive, so it’s a little surprising that the MSM has not been more interested in exploring comparisons. In both cases, the schools faced a disruptive student who was potentially violent, but different steps were taken.
(Incidentally, if the six people murdered in Tucson were University of Arizona students and not mostly adult Americans, I doubt that the “memorial” service on the UA campus would have devolved into a noisy pep rally for Obama. The memorial for Virginia Tech victims was properly respectful because many students knew someone who had been murdered.)
Pima Community College may have learned something about self-protection from the Virginia Tech experience, where a lawsuit against the university is going forward. Most of the families accepted the $11 million state settlement, but the relatives of Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson did not, because they wanted the university’s negligence to be better revealed.
So Pima College authorities paid attention to the five altercations Jared Loughner had with campus police and placed him on suspension.
On Oct.4, Loughner and his parents met with college administrators and withdrew from school. On Oct. 7, Pima sent a letter to Loughner telling him that if he intended to return to school, he would have to get a letter from a mental health official indicating “his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others.”
When a student appears so dangerous that classmates fear for their lives and sit near the door, it is wise for the college administration to bar his presence in the school. However, that precautionary measure is not enough. The college has likely protected itself from lawsuits but did not fulfilled its civic responsibility to inform the local community of a dangerous person.
The average age for the onset of schizophrenia in males is 18, so it makes sense for high schools and colleges to become more aware that disturbing changes in students’ behavior may indicate serious mental illness. There needs to be a better link between educational institutions, mental health practitioners and the police. Insane people are prohibited from buying firearms, but their names must appear on the NICS database.
Today fewer of the mentally ill are institutionalized and they are harder to identify for that reason. But anyone deemed too insanely dangerous to attend college is also too hazardous to purchase weapons.
The best way to protect Second Amendment rights is to keep insane persons and illegal aliens from buying guns.
Now Emanuel is campaigning to be mayor of Chicago, and his Democrat opponents are remembering and accusing him of insufficient ethnic pandering. Oops! Funny how the Raza gang demands complete allegiance to the mass amnesty goal, with no wavering allowed. Rahm got smacked around pretty good recently when the open-borders bunch ganged up on him.
And other candidates think that Rahm isn’t genteel enough for Chicago politics — “too brutish” — who knew? The new sensitivity is amazing to behold in a city famous for its rough politics.
Poor Rahm. After the Tucson mass murders, he appeared uncomfortable when quizzed by a reporter asking him about his famous admonition to “never let a good crisis go to waste.”
For the first time, Rahm Emanuel squared off against the other three major candidates in the race for mayor of Chicago. And the other three were ready to throw their punches.
Friday’s forum was a meeting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
Not only was Emanuel’s weakness among Latino politicians laid bare, he also took a frontrunner’s beating at the debate, which was closed to the press.
As the four candidates left the Tribune tower, three of them agreed that Emanuel deserved to be a target.
“He hasn’t faced the communities and neighborhoods across the city. He basically has had a Rose Garden strategy,” said Miguel del Valle, candidate for mayor.
Part of the focus was on Emanuel’s alleged reputation as a political brute.
“A lot of people have expressed to me that they are worried about such a brutish reputation being in the mayor’s office of Chicago,” said Gery Chico, candidate for mayor.
“Temperament is a very important thing. If you’re sending dead fish to people, I mean, come on,” said Carol Moseley Braun, candidate for mayor.
But the former White House chief of staff said his opponents’ attacks should be focused elsewhere.
“Let’s attack the problems facing the city of Chicago. I think the public will make an evaluation of who is the best candidate with the best ideas and the strength of character to see through the changes that are necessary for our city,” said Emanuel.
Emanuel took the biggest hit of the day an hour later when Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Bobby Rush were joined by some of the most powerful Latino politicians in the city, county and state. They condemned Emanuel’s record on immigration reform.
“As a member of Congress and as chief of staff in the White House, he took actions to harm immigrants,” said Gutierrez.
On Thursday, Emanuel offered what he called a local version of the Dream Act to help the children of undocumented immigrants. He said his record on immigration is the same as Gutierrez.
“As a congressman, about half my work was immigration reform. I voted just like Luis Gutierrez,” said Emanuel.
But Gutierrez angrily disagreed, displaying a letter he wrote to Emanuel last month demanding the candidate stop deceiving Chicago voters.
“The whole story is that as a leading member of Congress and as chief of staff of the White House, Rahm has not stood up for immigrants,” said Gutierrez.
Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, said those he served in Congress know the truth.
“I also helped, as a congressman, people who are stuck in the bureaucracy of the system get their citizenship,” said Emanuel.
Congressman Gutierrez is supporting Gery Chicago for Chicago mayor. But the disagreement with Emanuel over immigration reform goes back several years.
Early on in the campaign, Emanuel claimed the support of Juan Rangel, the Latino leader of the United Neighborhood Organization. Since then, however, Latino political leaders have thrown their support to other candidates.
Stupid Republicans. They have a winning issue in defending the country from millions of hostile foreign job thieves, but certain Rs — like hopeless squish Newt (Puerto Rican Statehood!) Gingrich — want to piss it away to please open-borders apologists like Ruben Navarette in an “outreach” effort that is based on compromising first principles of American sovereignty and national security.
Pandering to lawbreakers is not the ticket to electoral success. Any hispanics who require a mass amnesty for millions of their tribe are not worth ruining the country.
Of course there are many patriotic Americans of hispanic descent, and they don’t need BS talk about amnesty to vote for pro-borders candidates.
Instead of bargaining away American sovereignty for a handful of votes at best, Republicans should work harder on getting more worthwhile candidates who are stand-up defenders of the country. Some voters stay home on election day because too many candidates turn out to be friends of amnesty.
Observant citizens understand that when the government rewards a behavior, we all get more of it. Reagan tried the reward trick in 1986, and it did nothing but open the floodgates. We cannot let amnesty happen again, ever.
CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) — Republican speakers at a conference on reaching Hispanic voters urged the party to tone down its rhetoric on immigration and to take up comprehensive reform in Congress, warning that the party could lose ground with the country’s increasingly diverse citizenry if it doesn’t.
“(Hispanics) will be the swing voters as they are today in the swing states. If you want to elect a center-right president of the United States, it seems to me you should be concerned about places like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Texas, places where but for the Hispanic vote, elections are won and lost,” said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who co-chaired the conference organized by the new Hispanic Leadership Network.
But those gathered at the South Florida conference seemed split over whether the GOP’s lack of Hispanic support is simply because of the party’s tone, or if there’s a more substantive problem with the GOP’s policies.
“If you think it’s about tone, you have missed the point,” independent columnist Ruben Navarette told the audience of more than 300 at the Biltmore Hotel in the Miami suburb of Coral Gables. Other speakers blamed a liberal bias in the media and a few extreme voices in the party.
Here’s Navarette saying the immigration enforcement is racist, more or less.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the Florida Republican who retired from Congress this year and has long championed immigration reform, suggested Republicans need to work their tone and message.
“The decibels have to be lower,” he said. “It doesn’t’ matter how good are policy positions are, if we are perceived as being anti-immigrant, we cannot be the majority party.”
Diaz-Balart also urged congressional leaders to quickly take up a comprehensive immigration bill that a bipartisan group of legislators has quietly worked on for months. Diaz-Balart promised the new proposal would address previous concerns about people in the country illegally earning residency before those who follow the rules. Continue reading this article
I’ve been thinking about Pim Fortuyn (pictured) the last few days since the Tucson shooting and the liberal media’s shameful response of blaming conservatives. Fortuyn was the Dutch columnist and politician who warned about the dangers of Muslim immigration and was assassinated in 2002 for telling that controversial truth.
Where would van der Graaf get such an idea? Perhaps from the non-stop campaign of vilification and lies from the liberal Dutch press and leftist political opponents portraying Fortuyn as a fascist and extremist for discussing Muslim immigration. Socialists called him a “racist demagogue” even after the assassination.
Once a person has been successfully branded as a racist, then violence may follow, such as the excrement pies flung at Fortuyn preceding a press conference during his run for the Dutch Parliament before his murder.
Dehumanize and demonize — the strategy of portraying someone as outside the acceptable views of society is a lot like the Alinski Rules for Radicals to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Shorthand for that scheme is to use a bogus accusation of “racism.” So convenient — who needs a reasoned discussion of issues?
One Tea Party leader was frightened enough by death threats to stay home from the Tucson memorial service on Wednesday. Intimidation works, particularly against citizens who cannot afford private security like wealthy media figures such as Bill O’Reilly.
TUCSON, AZ — Trent Humphries, the leader of the largest tea party group in this mourning southern Arizona city, has nothing but praise for the way President Obama has led the nation through the aftermath of Saturday’s mass shooting at a constituent event for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). But Humphries won’t be there tonight when Obama speaks at a memorial rally intended to unify Tucson after six people were killed in the tragedy.
Humphries says he’s been getting threats at his home from people who seem to hold him and his organization partially responsible for the shootings Saturday. [. . .]
“We had people say, ‘too bad it wasn’t your family that was killed,’” Humphries told me. Other angry calls have come in as well. “‘The blood of that little girl on your hands,’” Humphries recalled one message saying.
But it was a new call that came in this week that Humphries said had him staying out of public view for a while.
“It was something like ‘we hate you and we’re going to stand against you and we’re going to use our First and Second Amendment rights to stop you,’” Humphries told me.
The good news is that the American people have too much common sense to be hoodwinked by lefty pundits, as shown by recent polls:
PRINCETON, NJ — A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans dubious that the heated language used in politics today was a major factor that influenced the alleged gunman in last week’s shootings in Tucson, Ariz. Twenty percent say such rhetoric was a major factor in the shootings, while 22% cite it as a minor factor; 42% say it was not a factor at all. Democrats are more likely than independents or Republicans to believe political debate played a role.
Americans have closely followed news stories about the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others in Arizona on Saturday, and most don’t feel politics was the cause of it.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of Adults say the shooting in Arizona was the result of political anger in the country. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say instead that it was a random act of violence by an unstable person. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans and 56% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties view the shooting as a random act of violence. Even Democrats by a 48% to 37% margin agree, although leading members of their party have attributed the shootings to a climate of anger they say has been generated by opponents of President Obama.
The bad news is that elite pundits have used inflammatory lies to amp up the danger to citizens who hold non-liberal views. The point is to silence voices who demand responsible spending in Washington as well as border enforcement. It’s a tough job, but the left has strong firepower in the mainstream media, from the snotty New York Times to gutter-trolling MSNBC. If a few Tea Party members get trampled in the process, that’s just so much road kill.
The left is still slack-jawed and furious at the electoral success of the Tea Party, a grass-roots movement composed of traditional Americans advocating reform, because liberals curiously see themselves as being superior and more virtuous. They believe diversity is the highest good, so who needs law, borders and financial responsibility? It’s a clash of values, and not a small one.
Far left loons from far and wide have been invecting upon Saturday’s shooting in Arizona to blame free speech from conservatives as the cause, even though the perp appears to be a paranoid schizophrenic with a long rap sheet of anti-social behavior and no political affiliation.
In California, Robert J. Birgeneau, the Chancellor of the University of California Berkeley has seen fit to join the liberal cluster rant, by sending an e-mail to the entire UCB system. The missive has shown up in the media, like the San Francisco Chronicle (where hundreds of readers commented, mostly negatively).
He complains about “discrimination against undocumented persons,” which most Americans would describe as the rule of law.
This weekend’s shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the deaths and injuries of many others in the horrific event at Tucson, Arizona have shocked our nation. We here at UC Berkeley offer our sincere condolences to everyone who has been personally affected by this tragedy.
Such a brutal and violent attack on an individual who has devoted herself to public service is deeply regrettable. It calls upon us as an academic community to stop and ponder the climate in which such an act can be contemplated, even by a mind that is profoundly disturbed. A climate in which demonization of others goes unchallenged and hateful speech is tolerated can lead to such a tragedy. I believe that it is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons. This same mean-spirited xenophobia played a major role in the defeat of the Dream Act by legislators in Washington, leaving many exceptionally talented and deserving young people, including our own undocumented students, painfully in limbo with regard to their futures in this country.
On our own campus, and throughout all the campuses of the University of California, we must continue to work toward a climate of equity and inclusion for all. We must be vigilant to condemn hate speech and acts of vandalism on our campuses by those wanting to promote enmity. We must work to support dialogue about our differences and eschew expressions of demonization of others, including virulent attacks on Israel, anti-Muslim graffiti, racism towards African-Americans, Chicano/Latinos and other underrepresented minority groups, and homophobic acts. Continuing to support our principles of community will ensure a better and safer campus. We must do this now so that our students, as future leaders of this great country, will continue to set the standard for a better and safer nation.
Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor, UC Berkeley
Birgeneau is no stranger to pushing the diversity line to the max, against traditional citizenship and national sovereignty. He enthusiastically supported the DREAM Act, despite the fact that it would have enabled more alien students to take valued slots from citizens.
In fact, the New York Times reported in a 2007 piece about how UC Berkeley had become very Chinese (Little Asia on the Hill) quoted a student remarking that “Here, many people speak Chinese as their primary language.”
As an illustration, note the sign in Chinese in the 2010 photo below of students protesting tuition increases near Berkeley’s iconic Sather Gate. Diverse enough yet?
In other related media news, the left’s talking points immediately focused on accusing conservatives of causing likely schizophrenic Jared Loughner to become violent because of vitriolic speech. It’s been quite the pile on, given that only a few hours had passed since the shooting that killed six in a Tucson parking lot.
There is indeed plenty of angry talk around, some of which is justified. As the late Terry Anderson used to say, “If you ain’t mad, you ain’t paying attention.” Isn’t the willful refusal of Washington to adequately defend the nation’s borders and sovereignty a reason for citizens to be annoyed?
In south Arizona at least, much of the anger in the minds of traditional citizens has to do with the threat to public safety posed by an open border, with a violent narco-state spilling over on a daily basis. Illegal alien crime is pervasive, remaking Phoenix as the kidnap capital and a center of car theft.
So when members of Congress express a desire for greater safety, the press thinks that’s fine — and it is.
But when Arizonans have demanded for years that Washington “shall protect each [state] against Invasion” as guaranteed in the Constitution, that’s “vitriolic.” Citizens are characterized as hateful and even racist for insisting that the government fulfill its responsibility to defend the national perimeter.
Acapulco was once a premier vacation spot in Mexico, known for its beautiful beaches and classy accommodations.
Elvis made a movie there, Fun in Acapulco, although it was more about bikinis than sombreros.
Today, however, the glamor is gone, replaced by dead bodies. Mexican organized crime has extended its brutal intramural warfare to the beachside city. In fact, the removal of heads appears to be a trend, a style point the narco-traffickers have picked up from jihadists, to add to the terror aspect.
Police found the bodies of 15 slain men, 14 of them headless, on a street outside a shopping center in the Pacific coast resort of Acapulco on Saturday.
Police in the southern state of Guerrero, where Acapulco is located, said handwritten signs were left with the bodies, a common calling card of Mexico’s cartels.
Acapulco has seen bloody turf battles between drug gangs in recent years.
The bodies were found in an area not frequented by tourists. The victims all appeared to be in their 20s.
It was the largest single group of decapitation victims in recent years.
In 2008, a group of 12 decapitated bodies were piled outside the Yucatan state capital of Merida. The same year, 9 headless men were found in the Guerrero state capital of Chilpancingo. Continue reading this article
Unlike many New Years list-makers, Rep Lamar Smith has put his down in writing for the public. And Smith’s position as the new Chair of the House Judiciary Committee means his list is an important indication of the direction the House will take in many important issues.
Last Friday, millions of Americans made New Year’s resolutions. Some resolved to exercise, others resolved to spend more time with their families and still more resolved to continue their search for work.
With U.S. unemployment at 9.8 percent, Congress also has a New Year’s resolution. As Republicans take control of the House, we are resolved to cut government spending, promote economic growth and help generate jobs for American workers.
Unlike some New Year’s resolutions, this one won’t be abandoned in the first weeks of 2011. We understand that the midterm elections were a clear message to Congress to change course, and we are committed to restoring prudence to U.S. policies.
Our priority on the House Judiciary Committee is job creation and oversight. More than 26 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Yet 7 million illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. work force.
We could open up jobs for millions of U.S. workers if we just enforced immigration laws. Work site enforcement efforts ensure jobs go to unemployed citizens and legal immigrants. Unfortunately, enforcement has dropped by 70 percent in the past two years. And with less enforcement, the jobs magnet continues to encourage illegal immigration.
Promoting the use of E-Verify is another way we can help make sure scarce jobs go to legal workers. E-Verify is the federal government’s program that enables companies to hire legal workers by verifying the Social Security numbers provided by new employees. More than 225,000 employers, large and small, use E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of applicants, and thousands of new businesses are signing up each month. We should expand this program. Continue reading this article
Rep. Elton Gallegly has been named as the Chair of the Immigration and Enforcement Subcommittee, rather than Steve King, as had been widely assumed.
I’m not completely sure what to think of this choice by Lamar Smith, the new Chair of the full Judiciary Committee. Was Gallegly chosen because King may have been seen as more of a verbal bomb-thrower on the subject of illegal immigration? Possibly.
Gallegly is no weakling on borders and sovereignty however. His career voting grade is A, and he has been in the House since 1987, four years longer than King.
My favorite quote from Rep Gallegly is “The more we become a nation of illegal immigrants, the deeper we fall into anarchy.” So la Raza is probably not doing any cartwheels over the selection of the Ventura County Republican.
An avid illegal immigration foe, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) will not continue as the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee’s Immigration subcommittee. Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) announced his selection for subcommittee chairman on Friday, and California Rep. Elton Gallegly (R) was chosen to head the Immigration and Enforcement panel.
King, who served as the ranking Republican on the Immigration subcommittee since 2007, was selected as vice chairman of the panel.
He has long been an outspoken foe of illegal immigration — and has been viewed as the successor to former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) as the party’s lead anti-immigration proponent.
In 2006, King went to the House Floor and built a model of a concrete border fence that he suggested should be electrified.
“We could also electrify this wire with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. We do that with livestock all the time,” King said at the time.
On Thursday, the Iowa Republican introduced a bill to eliminate “anchor babies.”
The bill, formally named the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011,” would bar children born on United States soil to “illegal alien parents” from automatically becoming citizens. Continue reading this article
On Wednesday the National Press Club was the site of a meeting aimed at dislodging the mistaken interpretation of the 14th Amendment that the children of illegal aliens born in the United States are US citizens. Members and supporters of State Legislators for Legal Immigration appeared to raise the issue, which is a major magnet for illegal aliens.
An anchor baby is an immediate entre to the welfare system of free food and medical care. When junior turns 21 he can sponsor his illegal alien parents in a perfect circle of lawbreaking.
Linked below is the press release of Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, who has been a leader on state immigration enforcement.
Pennsylvania State Representative and State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI) founder Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler County), state lawmakers and Constitutional scholars from across the nation convened in Washington D.C. today to unveil historic model legislation to correct the monumental misapplication of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This historic press conference was held on the same day as the swearing-in of the 112th Congress; encouraging that one of the first actions should be to uphold their oath and defend the Constitution to protect the states from the illegal alien invasion.
“According to the 14th Amendment, the primary requirements for U.S. citizenship are dependent on total allegiance to America, not mere physical geography,” said Metcalfe. “The purpose of this model legislation is to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which is currently being misapplied and is encouraging illegal aliens to cross and cost American taxpayers $113 billion annually, or nearly $1,117 yearly per individual taxpayer.”
Currently, hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are crossing U.S. borders to give birth and exploit their child as an “anchor baby,” as a means to obtain residency, access taxpayer-funded benefits and steal American jobs for themselves and for their families.
During an 1866 Congressional debate, U.S. Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered one of the fathers of the 14th Amendment, said “…every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
“I’ve long considered birthright citizenship to be the holy grail of the illegal immigration debate,” said Oklahoma State Rep. Randy Terrill. “It has created a perverse incentive for foreign nationals to break U.S. law and proven to be a policy disaster for our Republic.”
Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, and the presser was invaded by noisy open-borders anarchists, who succeeded to some extent to disrupt the proceedings. “Free speech for me but not for thee” is the leftist ideal. Nevertheless, the event got a good amount of coverage, including a piece in the New York Times, State Lawmakers Outline Plans to End Birthright Citizenship, Drawing Outcry.
I heard John Eastman, Dean of Chapman University School of Law, speak about birthright citizenship last summer in Phoenix and was impressed with the clarity his explanation on the subject. The video below is from Californians for Population Stabilization (transcript).
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.