8 in 10 Want U.S. Aid Only to Legal Citizens

Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, September 18, 2012

As the nation debates the surging demand for federal aid and the status of children born here to illegal citizens, a new Rasmussen Reports poll finds remarkable agreement that those seeking federal financial help must first prove they are Americans.

Just over eight in 10 likely voters said “yes” when asked if “before anyone receives government services should they prove they are a citizen?” Rasmussen said 81 percent agreed, and just 9 percent said no.


In the new poll, Rasmussen also found that a majority do not believe that the children born here to illegal immigrant parents should automatically become U.S. citizens. Some 53 percent said no versus 37 percent who agreed. {snip}


Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    In the new poll, Rasmussen also found that a majority do not believe
    that the children born here to illegal immigrant parents should
    automatically become U.S. citizens. Some 53 percent said no versus 37
    percent who agreed.

    Biden said that Obama’s executive order by amnesty was universally cheered.

    • The__Bobster

      On Univision it was.

    • Sherman_McCoy

      Biden molests small animals.

  • This is unacceptable.  Americans are horribly ignorant racist hateful bigot haters, and need more education.

    hmm, that’s exactly what leftists sound like, and they don’t even understand how totalitarian it is.

  • In my little corner of the world here is how “aid” works. A “Lonesome Cowboy” needed a place to keep his horse. I have a place with a small barn. I allowed him to keep his horse here but he really didn’t want to be “tied down” with a place of his own. I’ve listened to warning bells going off for a couple of months now. I gave him some work at $10.00 per hour and got my firewood cut and stacked for pretty cheap. I had to feed his horse on occasion because he is not to be “tied down” with any real responsibility, he is “wild and free”.
    When he ran out of gas I gave him some gas in his tank, not cash.” However I told him he would be paying me back as I am about to remodel my home a bit. He needed some money so I told him to go out and collect some bottles and cans. He came back after a bit and grumbled, “It’s all flocked up, this is bs.” etc.
    Then it comes closer to my project and he needs more money. There’s plenty of cut firewood rounds he could sell. “I’ll sell it!” “When”, I asked. “Well it’s easy to sell.”  I gave him a number, second time I sold wood for him, and told him to call because this guy needs firewood.  He called and immediatly sells two cords.
    The wood needs splitting so I offer to rent a splitter. I have the splitter and he goes at it for a few hours and then starts bitching at me again as to how it’s all flocked up. I insist he split wood and go into the house and he packs his stuff and moves it all off my property because I’m getting to involved in his “freedom” and making him work.  I call cow poop on this.  Will he return?
    I told him he isn’t the foot loose and fancy free cowboy he imagines himself to be as he is dependent on me for his horse and some finances.  He doesn’t like being “roped in” and leaves without a thank you or kiss my ass. 
    I still have my remodeling to do and expect to get paid back from him for the money I loaned him.  He’s pissed and the closer it gets to work the faster he runs.
    He told me that he’ll just get some broad to foot the bill for him.
    I’ll cut it short as that’s what all these muching shid heads do and makes people like me look like stupid ash holes for helping them.

    He left his horse and saddle behind.

    He’ll only be foot loose and fancy free as long as he can bs people and especially women.

  • Yes but, wink wink, nudge nudge, there are certain decisions that the electorate cannot be trusted to make. These are two of them.

  • libertarian1234

    “8 in 10 Want U.S. Aid Only to Legal Citizens”

    Since when did the majority view ever count in recent times?

    Nowadays politicians do what they want and ignore their constituents except during campaign speeches.

    And after they’re elected they don’t even bother to send an automated response to an issue raised by a citizen anymore, pretending as if they care about what he has to say.

    In the beginning we went to war over “taxation without representation,” but that’s exactly what we have right now.

    • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

      The “majority” will count once White People are the minority.  In short, the second we’ve been reduced to minority status is the second things like Affirmative Action will become illegal and Welfare will once again be called charity (no tax funded welfare for you whitey).

  • humptydumpty

    A point about “birthright citizenship.”

    I remember a few years ago a program on Judge Judy. Two women (black of course) appeared on her show and one was suing the other for $500 dollars she said she was owed due to money made in a business she was partners with the other woman in. As judge Judy listened, it became more and more apparent that the “business” these two were talking about was actually an illegal scam. Of course, Judge Judy stopped the proceedings and informed them that they couldn’t come looking for justice in a court of law because their business was an illegal scam. That was the end of that and Judge Judy got up and left the court.

    Okay, here we are with the idea of “birthright citizenship.” Two people come into the United States illegally and work and reside here illegally and use all our services illegally and at the end of everything, they copulate and the resulting issue is somehow miraculously a “Legal Citizen.” Puleeze, don’t look me in the face and tell me that. That’s the same as the above example. nothing legal can come out of stream of illegal activities. 

    • In other words, two illegal invaders cannot produce a legal citizen. It defies logic, as well as the spirit of the law and Constitution.

    • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

      Illegality Does Not Birth Legality.

      I’ve been writing that for years and years and years but does anyone listen?  Congress does not care.

  • The__Bobster

    I do. What other first world country allows this to happen? The few that did reversed course recently.

    • John Bonham


  • jedsrael

    We wish news like this would never come out, because the Diversity Enforcers will just use it as proof that “we have an emergency of racist White privilege running amok spreading irrational fear, bigotry, hatred, and contributing to a climate that legitimized violence against vulnerable udocumented communities who only come here to work and enrich America with renewal and hope.”

    Look for this poll to be used by the GOP to justify Comprhensive Non White Amnesty.

  • Obviously the policy rewards law breaking. Practically speaking it encourages the entire world to stream across the border. It’s not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. It also sets up the dilemma that the government is “tearing families apart” by enforcing immigration law by deporting mommy and daddy in said situations. So the practice fails on all levels.

    • IstvanIN

      There is no dilemma because there is no wall, mommy and daddy can take baby with them.

      • The family who is deported together stays together!

  • It’s hard to say, his advisors have muted him on such matters, other than lamenting that a “comprehensive” solution was not implemented under Obama.

  • That’s pretty much it, or their parents were. Maybe a few percent are radical left or libertarian loons.

  • tickyul

    Yep, no more entry for 3rd-9th world refugees. And when you come here………NO BENNIES until you are a US citizen.

     Many if not most people come here to scoop up the bennies.

  • tickyul

    So you DO support the Anchor Baby scam……….oh my.

  • When the kid turns 21, he can then sponsor mom and dad to join him in the US. This can happen as long as mom and dad stay 10 years in Mexico as a penality first. It may take decades before they come in legally, but it can happen.

  • jedsrael

    Romney is a Hispano lover and the Tea Party will fight against its own racism by granting Amnesty. Those in power always fight agaisnt the future of Whiteness in America. Brewer could do more, and doesn’t.

  • “Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

    There’s the money quote from Amendment 14 Section 1.   It’s not enough just to be born in the United States.  A child of illegal alien parents born in the United States might satisfy “born in the United States,” but they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

  • Diamond_Lil

    Radicalized Mexicans have destroyed the state of California.  Time to roll in the really big trebuchet.

  • You must live in my neighborhood Jay!

    • Sherman_McCoy

      Or mine, but the pregnant mothers are turks, africans, or pakistanis.

  • RegisterToPost

     Actually it would take either a Constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that everyone, legal or not, that is born here is a US citizen.

    • Westward93

      Not quite.  The Wong case was unique.  The Court held that because the family had a business, etc. they had certain ties to the U.S. that the illegals today do not have.  The Court would probably hold differently today if it evers gets a case.

    • That’s not what US v.
      Wong Kim said. In fact, this issue has never been addressed as it applies to
      today’s illegal alien invasion. Wong Kim can be distinguished in that it dealt
      with the Chinese Exclusionary Act, which prohibited Chinese, who were in the
      country LEGALLY, from conferring US citizenship to their American
      born offspring.

      The facts of Wong Kim are
      completely distinguishable from what is going on today.  A competent lawyer would be able to make that
      distinction. Two illegal invaders, who slither across our border, in violation
      of our immigration laws, as well as sovereignty, have no relationship to Wong

      Unlike Wong Kim, the
      illegal invaders of today never had a legal right to be in this country and are
      in fact in violation of our immigration laws at the time when US citizenship is being passed to
      their spawn. Two illegal invaders cannot produce a legal citizen.  

      Wong Kim is not
      controlling case law for this issue.

  • Ulick

    From “Anchor Babies – A Legal Opinion”


    1.   What are Anchor Babies? 

    An Anchor Baby is an offspring of an illegal immigrant who, under current legal interpretation, automatically becomes a United States citizen at birth.

     2.   What rights to Anchor Babies have? 

    Since they are treated as citizens, they have the full benefits of citizenship.  Anchor babies may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs including free medical care and a free education all subsidized by the American taxpayer.

     3.   Why are these babies called Anchor Babies? 

    Under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of twenty-one.  The sheer numbers are staggering since each Anchor Baby in the future may result in multiple additional immigrants in the next several years.   Needless to say, the costs would be far more staggering than even now.

     4.   With respect to whether such children are citizens under the Constitution Senate Candidate Jack Conway says the 14th Amendment is well settled that they are.  Is he correct?

    No.  The 14th Amendment on this issue is anything but settled. 

    5.    Those that support citizenship for Anchor Babies say that the Constitution provides that every person born within the limits of the United States is a citizen of the United States by virtue of their birth.  Isn’t that true? 

    No.  First, conveyance of citizenship upon children born in the U.S. was not enumerated in the original Constitution.  It was added in the 14th Amendment in 1868 for the express purpose of ensuring citizenship for newly emancipated African Americans.  The language states:  “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”  The Amendment was never intended to include children of foreigners or aliens.  The important qualification “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is often overlooked when arguing that the Amendment automatically includes all persons born within the United States, even of illegal aliens.
    6.    What does the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? 

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete.  For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. This exclusion was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1884 in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) where the Court held that native Americans were not considered citizen of the United States even though born in this country because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”  Congress subsequently remedied this oversight by enacting the Citizens Act of 1924 clarifying that Native Americans born in the United States were indeed citizens.

    8.         Aren’t children born of illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?            

    This issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.  In the case of illegal aliens, their native country retains a claim of allegiance on the child, similar to those of ambassadors and visitors.
    9.         What has the Supreme Court ruled with respect to children born of illegal aliens?            

    Although the Supreme Court has never directly decided this issue,  proponents of citizenship for Anchor Babies cite the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  That case did hold that a son born in the United States of alien Chinese parents in the U.S. was a citizen of the U.S.  

    10.       Isn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision binding precedent and settled law?            

    No, it is not.  The decision was predicated upon the fact that the parents were legally in the country and had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States.  The Court framed the question presented precisely as:   “whether a child born in the Unties States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. . .”                The majority of the Court held that Wong Kim Arc was a citizen under the question as presented.  Critical to the Court’s determination was the caveat that the parents had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.“  As such, Wong Kim Ark is distinguishable from the anchor baby cases where the parents do not have a permanent domicile or residence in the United States and are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. as they are in this country illegally and subject to deportation.  Wong Kim Ark is therefore predicated upon the legal domicile and residence of the parents.              The Court held that the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “within the jurisdiction of the United States”.  However the Court qualified that finding by stating that the Fourteenth Amendment confirmed citizenship by birth on “all children here born of resident aliens” with exception of children of sovereigns or Native Americans. To quote the Court: The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.  Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. 
    Therefore the Court clearly was referring to children of those who were domiciled in the United States. 

    11.    What does domicile mean?     

    It has been held by the courts that domicile ordinarily is understood to mean physical presence and the intent to remain somewhere indefinitely.  Castellon-Contreras v. INS, 45 F.3d 149, 153 (7th Cir. 1949).  The Castellon-Contreras court stated that “‘[a]lthough the word ‘domicile’ is nowhere defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is generally accepted that domicile is not established unless an individual intends to reside permanently or indefinitely in the new location.’” Id. (quoting Anwo v. INS, 607 F.2d 435, 437 (D.C.Cir. 1979).  The Castellon-Contreras court further held that “[i]n order to have a “lawful domicile,” then, an alien must have the ability, under the immigration laws, to form the intent to remain in the United States indefinitely“. That means “his intent to remain was legal under the immigration laws.”  Id., citing Lok v. INS, 681 F.2d 107, 109 (2d Cir.1982) (“[Petitioner] established lawful domicile only when his intent to remain here was legal under the immigration laws”).
    12.   Does an illegal alien have a domicile in the United States? 

    Under the authority of Castellon-Contreras, if one is in this county illegally, he or she could not have a permanent domicile for a permanent domicile necessarily means they have an intention to remain in the country indefinitely.  And that intent must be to remain here legally since they are subject to deportation. One here illegally could not be expected to believe they would remain in the country legally.  Additionally, since those persons are in the country illegally, they have not divested themselves of the jurisdiction of their mother country.  While they may be subject to the laws of the United States while here, they are primarily subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. 

    13.   Is there any indication how the Supreme Court would decide the issue of Anchor Babies today? 

    Based on the current composition of the Court, it is likely we would see a 4-4 division with the liberal wing finding citizenship and conservative wing voting against citizenship.  The swing vote would be Justice Kennedy, who could decide either way. 

    14.    That does not sound like the law is well established does it? 

    No, it does not.  If there could be a five-four decision, the law is not well established or decisive.

    15.   Is anything being done to bring this issue to a decision? 

    To bring clarity to the issue, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces. 

    16.    Would this Act be constitutional? 

    If this Act were to be adopted, it is very likely that the current Supreme Court would find it constitutional since the Wong Kim Ark decisions assumed a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the U.S. which is what is prescribed in the Act.  Also, citizenship has been clarified by other legislation in the past as was the case with The Citizens Act of 1924. 

    17.   What are the chances of that bill passing? 

    Under the current administration, it has no chance of passing.  However, the bill will force Congress to vote whether they support Anchor Babies or oppose citizenship for anchor babies.  Final passage would have to await a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican President. 

    18.   But if Mr. Conway were correct that the law is settled, does that mean there is nothing that can be done? 

    No.  A Constitutional Amendment could be enacted and sent to the states for ratification.  The Constitution can be amended when a proposal is passed by two-thirds of both houses and ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states or a Constitutional Convention can be called on Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States and adopted by three fourths of the states.

    • IstvanIN

       Thanks!  That was the most concise and clear explanation I have ever read!

    • IstvanIN

       Thank you for this very concise explanation.  Best I ever read.

    • John Bonham

      The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Cellar Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89-236)[1] abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Immigration Act of 1924. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

      The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that
      was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a
      preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family
      relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on
      visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota,
      not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor “special
      immigrants” (including those born in “independent” nations in the
      Western hemisphere; former citizens; ministers; employees of the U.S.
      government abroad).

  • John Bonham

    And who would actually WANT to give aid to illegal aliens ?? It should be 10 out of 10  .. SMH

    • With 30 million illegal invaders currently squatting on US soil; you can see why it’s only 8 out of 10. The 20% are illegal invaders and their anchor babies, who wish to continue giving aid to this invasion.

  • John Bonham

     You charged him rent  at $80  a week, yet locked him out of the house from 8:00 am till 6:00 pm ???  And you don’t see a problem in this ??

  • Triarius

    If you have no objection to automatic citizenship you are not paying close enough attention.

  • There was never any such law passed. The 14th Amendment is being intentionally abused in order to further multiculturalism and diversity.

    The 14th Amendment was passed to covey US
    citizenship to newly freed slaves. It has nothing to do with conferring US citizenship to the spawn of those who violated our immigration laws, as well sovereignty.

    This issue has never been addressed before any federal court. Most rational people know that it was not the intent of our Founders, to convey US citizenship to those who entered this country in violation of established laws. That makes no sense and contradicts the principles for which this country was founded upon.

    What we have today is the bastardization of the 14th Amendment, by those same traitors responsible for the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and other anti- White laws.

  • AmericanTaxPayerNoMore

    Being born on soil does not mean that person will hold the Allegiance to Country and Countrymen that is required.  As a matter of fact, non-whites and even some Whites born here have never and will never hold Allegiance and America was not built for leaches.