What did our founding fathers say about matters of the union?
I have to admit he is refreshing. At least ONE PERSON running for President is knowledgeable on the US Constitution. The FRAMERS VERSION … not that of some wingnut revisionist.
This time the ANCHOR BABY “sacred cow” of both Democratic and Republican … so called “intellectual elite” … is the target.
Last night while being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly the issue was brought up. O’Reilly has apparently fallen sway to those he claims to be part of the “intellectual elite”. O’Reilly INSISTED ON calling the ILLEGAL BORN here in the states US CITIZENS. Well if you want to be labeled ignorant in front of a few million viewers? Be my guest!
I have written over and over about the “natural born citizenship” definition according to the framers. That connects also to the simple concise definition of who is a citizen of the US and who IS NOT.
For those wanting knowledge first hand read the writing of the framers first hand yourself. It is straight forward and simple. That being said trying to discuss this simple straight forward material with these supposed “intellectual elites” straight forward simple does not seem to compute.
My question is why?
Simple ignorance by not reading the definitions for themselves?
Are they not actually as “intellectually elite” as they expect us to believe?
Are they simply parrots for some other faux-expert on the matter?
Do they have some corrupt agenda?
This you will have to figure out for yourselves.
Anyway just as I was ready to sift AGAIN through a ton of data I have collected over the years and write on this matter I found an article by Jim Delaney that already had just done it for another forum.
Here is his article in total with his gracious permission.
It is a long read … but if you want to be informed vs. ignorant it is well worth the time.
“Birthright Citizenship”: Revisionism v Rule of Law
by Jim Delaney for americac2c.com August 23, 2015 at 9:06am
We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.
Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.
By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better– have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.
During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O’Reilly’s characteristically bombastic–and wholly erroneous–claim that “the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period”. Poppycock! He couldn’t have read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and scary. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.
That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.
Here are my findings and conclusions:
First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.
It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite assertions to the contrary from both the left and right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to an “anchor baby”. In short, I was unable to find any convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress–and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to restate the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.
Toward that end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) amends section 301 of the Immigration & Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there is absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill’s language. In any event, the bill failed.
Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.
To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”
Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”
On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.
John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance was to the US.
Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.
Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word ‘jurisdiction’, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien’s physical presence alone in the US would not render him/her under the “complete jurisdiction” of the US. Simple enough.
The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship–when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.
In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)
P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.
Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.
Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States”, thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignities and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.
Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)
In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child’s birth on US soil? I suspect precious few.
In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers’ themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can’t trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)
Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th’s framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—was woven into this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I’d say.
Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning divergence from the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.
To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.
When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledeg***, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”
Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many activists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of “birthright citizenship”, Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that’s precisely what it should do.
Mark Lavine has also weighed in on the Anchor Baby “birthright citizenship” matter and you can hear what he had to say below.
We the People forget our founding fathers LIMITED THE FEDERAL government.
WE THE PEOPLE AS A STATE BODY TRUMP THE FED according to the Constitution.
Not the other way around.
The liberal/progressives would like you to believe CONSTITUTIONAL NULLIFICATION is some radical right-wing “nutty” action.
Apparently that interpretation depends on whose ox is being gored at the moment.
We INFACT see the progressive-left politicians and supporters allow, use and promote “nullification” in illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and drug legalization daily.
The Rachel Maddows and ilk are either hypocritical, ignorant or both.
So what is NULLIFICATION?
by Thomas E Woods, LewRockwell.com
In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.
The whole story …
Posted by Keith Broaders on June 22, 2011 at 8:14pm
What we need is to punish those elected officials that violate the ones we already have. The original 13th Amendment passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1810 and finally ratified in 1819 if observed today would be able to solve the number one reason why our government is so corrupt.
This Amendment prohibited Titles of Nobility and prohibited elected officials from accepting emoluments.
In other words elected officials would be prohibited from taking bribes and/or campaign contributions. The Amendment made it illegal for the government to offer benefits and/or entitlements to any group that were not available to all. The purpose of the amendment was to make everyone equal under the law. Violators of this Amendment were to lose their citizenship.
This Amendment was ratified by Virginia in March of 1819. Virginia became the 13th state to ratify which allowed the Amendment to become the law of the land. It was published in Constitutions up until the time of the Civil War when it mysteriously vanished without being repealed.
Are you aware we’re currently being denied that constitutional right?
Despite 700+ Article V applications from 49 of the 50 states, Congress is ignoring its obligation to issue the call for the Article V Convention.
Since history began, all political reformations the world over have always come down to one thing: a tipping-point majority joined in common cause.
The question is not whether the Convention is a good or bad idea.
The issue is whether or not Congress should be allowed to violate the Constitution whenever they choose.
ARTICLE V CONVENTION FACTS:
• The Article V Convention is not a “constitutional convention” or “Con-Con”, and does not and cannot re-write the U.S. Constitution.
• Whatever is discussed at the Article V Convention, 38 states must then agree to adopt any proposals before an amendment is ratified.
• The Article V Convention is simply a deliberative assembly of state delegates discussing what might garner the approval from an overwhelming amount of citizens from across the political spectrum.
• The Article V Convention is, by law, currently mandated by Article V and the U.S. Constitution.
• The Article V Convention returns us to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, reviving both in the face of current institutionalized corruption.