NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
From: Ronald Kyser (email him)
Re: James Fulford's blog post "Birthright Citizenship" Actually Stolen Citizenship
This has several advantages. First, it doesn't sound particularly nasty, so it can slip under the radar. Next, it reminds people that what is being bestowed is neither a right nor an earned privilege, but a gift—one we can withhold or take back at any time.
Finally, it makes clear that the child is not merely made equal to native US citizens, but is lifted thereabove to an élite class claiming more than one homeland. (Hey, where's MY dual citizenship?)
In addition, we should bury the weak term "amnesty". Deportation (hey, where's MY free trip to Mexico? It's cold here!) itself is amnesty, and the word should never be used for anything more generous. "Windfall citizenship" better expresses the truth of that policy.
Turning to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"—well, those here illegally are implicitly rejecting that very jurisdiction, aren't they? And our government, by its lack of enforcement, implicitly endorses this view. So their actions concede our point. I don't believe I've seen this point addressed, on VDARE.com or anywhere else.
For more letters from Roland Kyser, an old friend of VDARE.COM, see here.
James Fulford writes: Excellent suggestions, especially "windfall citizenship." We know that governments take an interest in preventing "windfall profits," made by businessmen, so maybe they'll crack down on windfall citizenship.
As for the jurisdiction thing, the Mexican Government claims jurisdiction over anchor babies in the US, and that has been discussed by Allan Wall: How Mexican Law Undercuts "Anchor Baby" Interpretation of U.S. 14th Amendment