Birthright citizenship

Birthright citizenship has been American practice since the foundation and American law for more than 150 years. Birthright citizenship is one of the factors that made American great and one of the big difference with Europe. It is a big reason why America has assimilated immigrants so much better than Europeans and a big part of what made America exceptional for the last couple centuries. Even if it were legal to change it, I would oppose the change absolutely. It is un-American in a very real sense.


It is a fundamental pillar of conservatism that arrangements long established should not be changed for light or transient reasons. Birthright citizenship is long established and has produced great benefits. The problems with illegal immigration today are light and transient problems.

Re people born in the U.S. to temporary visitors. The U.S. State Department has practiced exactly the type of birthright citizenship. A baby born to a person temporarily in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen. The only exceptions are foreign diplomats specifically accredited to the U.S. and subject to the various diplomatic treaties. When I was in Poland, we actually had many cases of "unaware" U.S. citizens, i.e. children born in the U.S. to Poles working temporarily in the U.S. They were U.S. citizens even if they did not know it for most of their lives.

The U.S. does not recognize any other citizenship beyond U.S. So you keep your U.S. citizenship unless you specifically renounce it, and even in that case it is not easy to do.

Americans are special. No country has been consistently as generous to outsiders than our own. We can be proud of our history, but we should also recognize the fundamental pragmatism. We have made Americans of diverse people from around the world.

In America we are interested in who you are and what you can do; we do not care who your father was and are even less interested in your lineage.

Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" who united Germany and was known for his cold realism, said that there was a special providence the protected drunks, children and the United States of America. He was jealous of America's success and lamented that millions of Germans had gone to America and enriched our country at the expense of his. In the 2000 census, 58 million Americans claimed to be of German ancestry. It is our largest ethnic group, but nobody notices or cares. But they used to care. When T Roosevelt complained about hyphenated Americans, he was aiming his criticism at Germans. The first English-only laws were aimed at them. Today they are just Americans. That is how America works.

One more thing - we get a lot of talk about Republicans needing to be careful not to antagonize Hispanics. This is a short term outlook. I reject the premise. I do not support birthright citizenship out of an ephemeral political consideration. I support birthright citizenship because it is right and it has been right for America pretty much forever.

Posted by Christine & John at August 20, 2015 1:51 PM
Comments
Comment #397624

The 14th Amendment does not support the “birthright citizenship” concept.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 2:13 PM
Comment #397626

Royal

Let the scholars fight that out. Most has assumed that it does, but that would be a Supreme Court case. The fact is that American law has a strong component of common law, i.e. long established practice. It is another way we are exceptional. Suddenly to change our practice after more than two centuries requires a little more justification than anger.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2015 2:26 PM
Comment #397629

John, I found this commentary particularly insightful. It settles nothing but does explain much.

“In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 3:05 PM
Comment #397634

The 1844 case of Julia Lynch was presented on Lawrence O’Donnell last night and reposted on DailyKos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/20/1413731/-Birthright-Citizenship-The-case-of-Julia-Lynch-1844

The law on birthright citizenship is quite clear. It goes back to common law even before the Constitution, and that common law was adopted into American law at its founding. The 1844 case of Julia Lynch supports this. The ruling re-asserts birthright citizenship, even in a case where the parents were citizens of another country who were only visiting the US temporarily. They stayed for a very short time and then returned to their country of origin with the baby, and never returned. That baby was born here, and therefore an American Citizen. Period.

“Subject to jurisdiction” refers to foreign diplomats and Native American children born on reservations.

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2015 3:50 PM
Comment #397641

Royal and phx8

We are arguing this on both sides of Watchblog. Just to bring it back to mine …

My question would be even if it were legal to round up millions of “illegals” including children born in the U.S. and send them to “homes” they never visited, would we, as civilized people, be willing to continence that?

I have more of a stake in that than average, since it would be possible for people like me to be charged with helping make that happen. I do not have to think about it very long to know what I would do. If such an order came from President Trump, I would refuse to comply, since my oath is to protect the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign. If pushed, I would resign. And I think you would get many professionals resisting and resigning. You could replace us with thugs less principled. But I think this would be a major moral issue. It would make the Japanese internment look like small potatoes and we would not have the justification of the exigencies of war.

Trump is speaking loosely about something very important and something I do not think he understands. If he does understand, he is a horrible monster. In any case, he should never lead our democracy. I am confident that he will not.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2015 4:35 PM
Comment #397642

John

I am not writing about deportation. I am talking about ending “birthright citizenship”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 4:40 PM
Comment #397644

Trump is talking about deportations. He should keep quiet about things he does not understand. He is worse than Obama, and that says a lot.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2015 4:42 PM
Comment #397645

I would definitely support ending Birthright citizenship. As far as Trump deporting Good luck on that Donald!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 20, 2015 4:54 PM
Comment #397649

Well here is what it says on the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,

Nothing about babies, dammit.(Snark)

Some people would kill the goose that lays the golden egg in our country (our immigrants). They have no comprehension of what this country is and means except through the narrow vision of their angry and inept existence. There are plenty of us Americans and plenty more on the way that will overcome their xenophobic meanderings through the use of perseverance, good will, hard work and dedication to the meaning of those words on the Statue of Liberty. We don’t care if you are angry, not one bit. This time they have tapped into something they know very little about but will soon find out. Indeed, that goose is in no danger and will continue to provide the greatest asset this country has, our immigrants.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 20, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #397650

Speak, I apparently value my citizenship more than you do yours.

We don’t dishonor the words on the Statue of Liberty by establishing rules of citizenship.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 5:32 PM
Comment #397651

Speaks, Legally entering the country is one thing I support, but coming here just to have a baby so it has citizenship, NO!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 20, 2015 5:44 PM
Comment #397652

C&J,
On this we agree. I cannot conceive of an America that would round up and deport 11 million people for the crime of wanting to be Americans. It is so ugly, and as you note, we would not even have the excuse of being in a war to justify doing something so terrible and so fundamentally contrary to what it means to be an American.

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #397654

phx8 wrote; “The law on birthright citizenship is quite clear.”

Yes, it would be if Section 1 of the 14th Amendment ended at the first comma.

Would you care to speculate on the meaning, or need for, the rest of the sentence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #397655

I have absolutely no problem with deportation of illegals when they are caught by the police, i.e. traffic stop, committing a crime. Regarding “Birthright Citizenship”, I think Hispanics have taken advantage of a law. I think the writers of the law never intended for it to be used by coyotes who are paid to bring illegals across the border for the sole purpose of giving birth to a baby that is then guaranteed a plethora of benefits. I have no problems with the parents being deported and if they want to take their children with them…fine. But this fluke in the law is the opportunity for the left to jump on the compassionate band wagon. Which brings me to this question, if the left is so concerned about birthright citizenship babies and so compassionate that these babies be given all their Constitutional benefits; could someone from the left please explain to me the support for the uncivilized acts taking place at “>Planned Parenthood of removing organs from babies who still have beating hearts?

Planned Parenthood is working hard to counter the steady drip of damning videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress, but not even the highest priced Washington, D.C. flacks are likely to be able to erase the thought picture of someone cutting through a child’s face with scissors.

Holly O’Donnell and her Planned Parenthood colleague were harvesting organs that day at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, a mega-clinic in San Jose, California that has an annual budget of $100 million or 10 percent of the national organization.

O’Donnell, who turned whistleblower after leaving StemExpress, said the child was the most fully developed she had seen up to that point. She describes in great detail how the newly aborted boy was rinsed off and prepared for dissection.

Her colleague called her over and, according to O’Donnell, said, “Hey Holly, come over here, I want you to see something kind of cool, kind of neat.” O’Donnell said she was flabbergasted to see “…the most gestated fetus and closest thing to a baby I’ve seen.”

Her colleague then took an instrument and “tapped the heart and it starts beating.”

O’Donnell says, “I am sitting here looking at this fetus and it’s heart is beating and I don’t know what to think.” She said she didn’t know if the child was alive or dead but “it had a face. It wasn’t completely torn up. Its nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids and its mouth was pronounced.”

The medical technician said the child was so intact that they could “procure a lot from it. We’re going to procure a brain.” The tech told O’Donnell they would need to “go through the face.” The medical tech took scissors and cut through the child’s lower jaw up through the mouth. O’Donnell was directed to cut the rest of the way through “the middle of the face.”

“I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said O’Donnell. O’Donnell had to take the boy’s remains and put him in a bio-hazard container and “then I realized I was the only person ever to hold that baby.”

“That was the moment I realized I couldn’t work for [StemExpress] any more,” she said.

This is sick and anyone who supports it is sick. What difference its there between this and the sick Nazis who killed 6 million Jews? Hell is not hot enough for the people who do this and those who support it.

Posted by: Blaine at August 20, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #397657

16 Journalists Accept Planned Parenthood Awards – Despite Horrifying Abortion Videos!

While the media stay away from the recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of aborted baby parts, they are drawn to Planned Parenthood’s annual media awards ceremony.

During Planned Parenthood’s Maggie Awards for Media Excellence Tuesday night, the abortion giant recognized 16 journalists for pushing “reproductive rights.” From Buzzfeed and Yahoo! to MSNBC, MRC Culture compiled a list of several prominent media attendees – and found a picture announcing the winners.

Those include Cosmopolitan.com’s Jill Filipovic, for TV & Online Reporting; left-wing magazine The Nation, for Excellence In Media, and TeenVogue.com’s Phillip Picardi, for Youth Media. Salon’s Valerie Tarico won Outstanding Individual Commentary for a piece undercutting liberal claims that no one is pro-abortion. Her story was titled: “I am pro-abortion, not just pro-choice: 10 reasons why we must support the procedure and the choice.”

With no official list released yet, MRC Culture also searched Twitter to compile a list of media present and/or awarded at the event:

Buzzfeed – via Casey Gueren

Colorlines.com – via Akiba Solomon and Aura Bogado

Cosmopolitan – via Jill Filipovic

Ebony – via Jamilah Lemieux

Elle – via Laurie Abraham and Leah Chernikoff

Esquire – via John H. Richardson

Mic – via Elizabeth Plank

MSNBC – via Irin Carmon

Pearl of Africa documentary – via Cleo Kambugu and Jonny von Wallström

Salon – via Valerie Tarico

Teen Vogue – via Phillip Picardi

The Nation – via Katha Pollitt

UpWorthy – via Ariel Azoff, Wagatwe Wanjuki and Lori White

Vice – via Fazeelat Aslam

Yahoo! Health – via Jen Gerson Uffalussy

Tai Beauchamp of InStyle hosted the event.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2015/08/19/16-journalists-accept-planned-parenthood-awards-%E2%80%93-despite#.byafcd:03n4

May these people burn in Hell for all eternity…

Posted by: Blaine at August 20, 2015 6:25 PM
Comment #397658
Would you care to speculate on the meaning, or need for, the rest of the sentence.

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is only meant to deny citizenship to the children of diplomats. Unlike undocumented aliens, diplomats are immune from certain American laws and are here expressly as the agents of a foreign power.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2015 6:27 PM
Comment #397659

Warren, please read what the author of the amendment has to say. Then, get back with us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 6:30 PM
Comment #397660

This post is simply meant to slam Donald Trump. Nobody cares about babies born in America, and we certainly don’t have any politicians with the balls to do anything about it. But while we are debating the comments of Trump; Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in it’s death throws. A Kentucky Democrat Congressman has admitted that Hillary’s Server/email scandal is enough to shut down her campaign. Of course this is nothing more than a Republican witch hunt; according to Hillary and the leftists on WB.

http://www.whas11.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/19/johnyarmuth-hilary-clinton-email-issue/32013815/

Posted by: Blaine at August 20, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #397661

Hasn’t it always been the desire for the left to make America into a European clone? But did you know that not one European country offers birthright citizenship; but in America we have this:

Federal agents recently raided 37 sites in southern California, which appear to have provided thousands of Chinese women the chance to give birth to babies on U.S. soil in exchange for fees of up to $60,000. Enticements included not only the opportunity to acquire automatic citizenship for their children – a package of free schooling, food, health and retirement benefits potentially worth millions of dollars – but also more mundane attractions like nannies, trips to Disneyland and fancy restaurants.

The New York Times notes that affidavits filed by law enforcement authorities “quote Chinese government sources as reporting that Chinese nationals had 10,000 babies in the United States in 2012, up from 4,200 in 2008.”

For prosperous Chinese or residents of unstable countries like Russia, an American passport represents an invaluable safety net. Some estimate that as many as 40,000 children from all over the world are born under such circumstances in the U.S. each year. Over time, with family members climbing aboard, the total allowed into the country multiples.

Once those babies turn 21, and if they are in the country, they can sponsor other family members to enter the U.S. Under our law, which promotes family unification, parents, siblings and minor children of a U.S. citizen are welcome. According to a report from John Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies, admitting family members account for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants.

Posted by: Blaine at August 20, 2015 6:47 PM
Comment #397663

“It would make the Japanese internment look like small potatoes..”

Trump’s proposals are all batshit crazy but the immigration one is particularly wacky and downright scary: deport 11 million aliens and their families including children born in the US (need to keep the family together).

You are being kind, C&J, in comparing his immigration proposals to the morally offensive internment of the Japanese Americans and aliens in WWII.

The more apt comparison is the Nazi purge of the Jews and other disapproved persons: huge sweeps by federal agents across the US to find the aliens; enormous processing and detention centers; trainloads of families being sent across the border to Mexico. What a photo opt for the world!

Now, to be fair to Trump, I am sure that the processing centers will be first class and the trains of the highest quality (no boxcars). After all, Trump has a reputation in the hospitality business to uphold.


Posted by: Rich at August 20, 2015 7:02 PM
Comment #397664

RF,

OK, here is an exaustive review of contemporary attitudes regarding birthright citizenship. The conclusion? Only 4 groups of people born in the US were ever considered to be outside the jurisdiction thereof:

1. Children of Indians living on land beyond the purview of US justice (since the frontier was settled, this category is obsolete)

2. Children of Diplomats

3. Children of soldiers of an invading/occupying military

4. Children born on foreign ships at sea

In no case, is it ever argued that the child of an illegal alien was not subject to the jurisdiction of US law.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2015 7:28 PM
Comment #397665

Speak4all,

There is no statute in the US more meaningful than the Statute of Liberty in New York harbor. When you visit it, you cannot escape the feeling of how lucky you have been that a grandparent or great grandparent had the courage to take that voyage and the generosity of this nation to give them the opportunity to start a new life here.


Posted by: Rich at August 20, 2015 7:31 PM
Comment #397666

Sorry Warren, no sale.

Read what the author of the amendment wrote.

PS, your link is broken

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 7:32 PM
Comment #397667

Royal

It doesn’t really matter what the author thought. It was ratified by Congress and the States. They interpreted it as they thought and that will become the purview of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2015 7:39 PM
Comment #397668

“It doesn’t really matter what the author thought.”

Please John, don’t demean your intellect to make a point.

Of course it mattered what the author thought about the amendment he wrote. Don’t you think it was discussed and understood before congress voted on it?

The Civil Rights Act referenced by me above states; “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

If you understand why Indians were exempted, you will understand why birthright citizenship was not contemplated. Is a baby born in the US of non-American citizens not considered a citizen of their country of origin? If yes, are they not subject to a foreign power (country of origin).

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2015 7:59 PM
Comment #397669

Sorry, here you go:
https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/f9f538a3-2d8c-4c28-82ee-467d048296ad.pdf

Included in the above are the following:

From Rep. William Lawrence of Ohio:

“In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that …
all ‘children born here are citizens without regard to the political condition or allegiance of their
parents.’”

There are quotes from Sens Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard as well that share the same sentiment.

From the 1907 Supreme Court Reporter, we find this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=bag9g4l7qeIC&dq=birth%20citizenship%20fourteenth%20amendment%20jurisdiction%20thereof&pg=PA474#v=onepage&q&f=false

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2015 8:00 PM
Comment #397670

RF,

I have a comment waiting for C&J’s approval that contains some links.

If you understand why Indians were exempted, you will understand why birthright citizenship was not contemplated.
In the 19th century, many Indians lived beyond the frontiers of the US justice system. Thus, they were not subject to US jurisdiction. Same can also be said for diplomats, hostile armies and foreign ships at sea; all of them are exempt from certain aspects of US law. Tourists and immigrants, on the other hand, are subject to our legal system and its laws therefore they are considered under US jurisdiction. This makes their children US citizens provided they are born on American soil. Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2015 8:06 PM
Comment #397671
Is a baby born in the US of non-American citizens not considered a citizen of their country of origin?

Neither of Marco Rubio’s parents were US citizens when he was born. Does this mean he was not subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2015 8:12 PM
Comment #397673

Royal

Perhaps we should be clear. He was not the “author”, he was the “drafter.” He drafted the document for the consideration of legislative bodies. His intent makes no difference. Their interpretation rules.

You might employ someone to write a contract, which you and your counterpart agree to mean something and act on that. If the drafter later shows up and claims he meant something else, it doesn’t much matter.

Warren

I don’t approve these things. They just happen. It evidently got stuck in spam.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2015 9:18 PM
Comment #397677

All comments that have too many links display a “your message is being held for an administrator’s approval” message after I hit post. I know from managing my own threads that this means that they were sent to the spam heap for the article’s author to retrieve.

Looks like my quotes from the 1907 Supreme Court Register didn’t post, so I have put them here:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth Within the territory in the allegiance and under the protection of the country including all children here born of resident aliens With the exceptions or qualifications as old as the rule itself of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers or born on foreign public ships or of enemies Within and during a hostile occupation of part of Our territory and With the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes 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 State.
Posted by: Warren Porter at August 20, 2015 10:40 PM
Comment #397678

Yet another legal case re-affirming birthright citizenship, this one from 1898:

“It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2011/01/19/7987/who-was-wong-kim-ark/

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2015 11:01 PM
Comment #397679

And let’s put aside the legal arguments, which would be determined by the courts.

Trump proposed mass deportations. That is morally unacceptable & practically impossible.

IMO - going forward eliminating birthright citizenship would be a mistake, not to mention simple churlish. It would not solve the problem that we purport to have and just run the risk of creating a two-tiered American society.

I have trouble understanding Trump’s appeal on this issue. He taps into anger in America. He recognizes a problem, but then proposes a silly solution.

The more I see of Trump, the more I dislike him. He bullies his way to success. I do not admire people like him, not even a little. His only positive is that he sticks it to the PC folks, but that is insufficient compensation for his other problems.

Beyond that, he is not a conservative by any definition I recognize. He made his money by manipulating government regulations and using laws as offensive weapons. He is exactly what is wrong with crony capitalism. He has given more money to Democrats than to Republicans and has often espoused expansion of government power in order to help his own interests.

Trump is a reactionary in the pure use of the term. He simply reacts to stimulus. His strength is figuring out how to advance his own interests mostly by trashing others.

A good leader expands wealth for all, not only for himself, not principally for himself. A good negotiator finds common ground and let’s others get something. He does not trick and bully to get most things for himself.


The trump “deal” style may function in his own narrow affairs. Experience in international negotiations, however, indicate that if you “win” too big in negotiations, you lose. Your opponents figure out ways to cheat or get revenge. The classic cases are both Treaties of Versailles. The first in 1871 (later concluded in Frankfurt) humiliated France at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. It contributed to French desires for revenge and helped lead to WWI. The other Treaty of Versailles in 1919 humiliated and crippled Germany. It led to Hitler and WWII. Both were called “Carthaginian Peace” the kinds of deals Trump seeks.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2015 11:31 PM
Comment #397680

C&J, you can’t quite figure out why Trump is so popular, can you? Your description of Trump could be applied to all politicians. You complain about Trump’s “Deal” making, but we currently have a President who’s dealing are destructive to the US and Israel, plus others. We have had 6 1/2 years of a narcissist president who’s sole purpose is to create a legacy. Trump’s campaign slogan is “Make America Great Again”, Obama’s slogan is “Make America a Third World Nation”; most of the candidates are like the rest of the Republican establishment, terrified to make a comment that is politically incorrect, Trump just doesn’t care. Each candidate reads from prepared statements; Trump uses no written speech, he shoots from the hip. And who is ahead in the polls, go figure. Until you can figure out what the conservatives are thinking; you will keep writing anti-Trump comments.

Posted by: Blaine at August 21, 2015 7:35 AM
Comment #397681

Blaine

I cannot figure out why Trump is so popular. You are right.

If you compare him to Obama, I am with you. Obama is messing up big time with the “deals” he is making. I do not want to replace one screw up with another, however. I can dislike both Trump and Obama.

Trump is very rich, which is why he gets away with being a buffoon. But consider his wealth. He inherited a pile of money and a bunch of businesses. He went bankrupt four times. He made much of his current money not through actually making stuff, but through notoriety, bluster and political influence. He is exactly the kind of businessman I hate. I suspect he would be even a worse leader.

His main skill is personal destruction. Anyone who criticizes him is torn down.

So we can respect his ability to self-promote and protect himself with vicious aggression, but we don’t want a guy like that in charge.

Trump wins. Good for him. Everybody around him loses. A good leader wins in such a way that everybody around him is better off. Trump is the cuckoo in the nest. He gets big by making others small.

Even “his” slogan - “make America great again” he means make Trump great and America might get to come along. His prescription for making America great seems to be by making everyone else small. It is his whole personality writ large.

All humans are flawed and tinged with destructive pride. Trump is a worse version and the worst is that he, and evidently many supporters, see his flaws as virtues.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2015 7:55 AM
Comment #397682

Blaine

Another thing about Trump. He is a true RINO. He claims to be a conservative but most of his life he has contributed more to Democrats, been involved in big government, 7aggressively used regulations against his competitors. He has advocated higher and more progressive tax rates. He is not one of us. He only panders to some of our prejudices and someday, soon, we will feel ashamed for letting him do it.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2015 8:14 AM
Comment #397683

AND one more - There is a good chance that Trump will get Hillary elected. He is saving her from her own paranoia and incompetence - currently by taking the spotlight off her and likely in 2016 with an independent run that siphons off enough votes to give her a plurality.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2015 8:17 AM
Comment #397684

Rich, the last time I visited New York I went to the Statue of Liberty and the World Trade Center (tells you how long ago that was). I don’t expect I will be going again as I do little traveling now. You are absolutely correct, the statue is awe inspiring, to say the least. Sent one of my kids (I still call them kids but they are over 40) a congratulations on a promotion but also included a quote:

“If you set your goals ridiculously high and it’s a failure, you will fail above everyone else’s success.” James Cameron

That is the promise of America. Dreams and success, dreams and failure, but always a dream. That is our promise.

Trump is easy to figure out. He is a self-aggrandizing candidate that appeals to like minded self-aggrandizing people. I would trade the lot of them for the promise that just one “Anchor baby” brings, all of them.

Posted by: Speak4all at August 21, 2015 10:36 AM
Comment #397691

C&J, I will say this again, I would vote for Trump if he is nominated; but I don’t believe he will be nominated. What I do like about Trump is his ability to control the narrative. He’s causing the other candidates to discuss subjects that voters want to hear. It doesn’t matter what he supports; except for Obama, no president can do anything unless the Congress passes it. Regarding Hillary, Trump will not get her elected. She is making herself unelectable. Let the crap hit the fan; by this time next year, if Biden or someone else has not replaced her, there will be plenty of time to bring up her flaws. The only thing that can happen to Hillary, is for more of her mistakes to be revealed.

Posted by: Blaine at August 21, 2015 5:51 PM
Comment #397693

Blaine-
It’s been my experience that there are plenty of people with the balls to be outspoken, with the balls to propose unconstitutional laws, with the balls to do pretty much anything. Boldness is not a necessary sign of virtue.

The thing about birthright citizenship, however it may be abused by undocumented immigrants, is that it protects us at a basic level. Citizenship is what grants us so many other rights, the wellspring of our identity. There was a reason that this was one of the three big post-civil war revisions to the Constitution, the first being the abolition of slavery, the third being the fifteenth Amendment, which eliminated laws blocking voting rights on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.

Only citizens can vote and hold office. Citizens can enjoy the benefits of many government services, whereas non-citizens are barred from many.

Birthright citizenship, and the equal protection of the law attached to it are fundamental to the protection of our rights and the limitation of the power of government to shape its laws and its electorate to its own agenda. That you would risk that, just to take something away from undocumented immigrants shows how shortsighted the policy discussion has become.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2015 7:07 PM
Comment #397694

C&J, I was just watching a discourse between Lora Ingram and Charles Krauthammer. Charles holds the exact same view as you when it comes to Trumps popularity. He can’t understand why Trump is doing so well in the polls. Ingram told him the American voters are sick of politicians, on both sides, who have failed to do what they promised. Krauthammer said what Trump is proposing regarding immigration cannot be done an Ingram told his “you don’t understand how upset the voters are the elected politicians have done nothing to correct the problem”. Obama has made it worse, bush did nothing, and Boehner and McConnell have not even touched it. Trump is supposed to have at least 40,000 people at his Alabama rally tonight.

Posted by: Blaine at August 21, 2015 7:18 PM
Comment #397695

Stephen, Congress has the right to change Birthright citizenship. I read and read the 14th amendment and no where do I see that an illegal coming into the U.S. to give birth that her child will be a U.S. citizen. “And subject to the jurisdiction there of” that part tells me that the birth mother has her jurisdiction to whatever country she came from and seeing how her child is part of her that child has the same jurisdiction as the mother, hence a citizen of whatever country the mother came from. Take something away from undocumented immigrants shows shortsightedness??? UNDOCUMENTED=ILLEGAL Stephen what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 21, 2015 7:33 PM
Comment #397696

Stephen Daugherty, once again, you miss the point. Trump is identifying with the mood of the voters. The American people are sick and tired of how Obama has “in your face ” regarding border security. Trump will never be able to do what he says, but the American people know that upholding current laws will get immigration back on course. Ingram, when talking to Krauthammer, used an analogy “if a criminal broke into your house and then you were told not only do you have feed and house the criminal but you have to feed an house his family too; this is what is happening to the American voter”. You can quote laws all you want, but it falls on deaf ears of the voters.

Posted by: Blane at August 21, 2015 7:34 PM
Comment #397698

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me.

If we continue increasing our national debt by trillions each year, give citizenship to every one who can get here thru anchor babies, expand entitlements to everyone with a soap box following, demean our police and religious, and condone the murder of our unborn…

We all will become the huddled masses yearning for what once was.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2015 7:49 PM
Comment #397709
“And subject to the jurisdiction there of” that part tells me that the birth mother has her jurisdiction to whatever country she came from

Absolutely ludicrous. Foreign nations’ law enforcement has no jurisdiction over foreign citizens who come to the US. When the 14th amendment was debated, drafters clearly indicated that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only referred to people outside the purview of the US justice system. Namely, the children of the following:

1. Foreingers giving birth on foreign ships at sea
2. Untaxed Indians living beyond the frontier.
3. Foreign Diplomats
4. Hostile military forces.

Undocumented immigrants do not fall under any of these categories. Abundant evidence indicates that they are subject to US laws, not the laws of their native lands. Centuries of common law precedent as well as 150 years of precedent in the US courts such as the Wong Kim Ark case:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8FVHAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22subject%20to%20the%20jurisdiction%20thereof%22%20citizenship&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=%22subject%20to%20the%20jurisdiction%20thereof%22&f=false

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 22, 2015 12:15 AM
Comment #397710
You can quote laws all you want, but it falls on deaf ears of the voters.

We are a nation of laws, and it is our longstanding practice of rule of law that has made the US unique in the world. Certain aspects of the Constitution are immutable, you cannot go around changing things merely because they inconvenience a rowdy electorate hostile to the aspirations of millions of Americans.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 22, 2015 12:22 AM
Comment #397712

Warren Porter, you and the rest of your leftist friends are either unable to comprehend what I said or you are intensionally trying to create your own topic. I said Trump will never be able to implement what he says. The congress would never try to deal with this. What Trump has done is change the rules on political correctness. The first thing out of the mouth of your side is “racism”. The left shuts down all debate by attacks of racism. What I said was that Trump has dialed in on the grievances of the voters; and no amount of quoting laws will satisfy the voters anger toward politicians who have promised for decades to do something about illegals invading America and have not. That being said, it was never the Intention of the 14th amendment to create situations (like the recent Chinese birth hotel) that allow illegals to come here for the sole purpose of gaining US benefits.

Posted by: Blaine at August 22, 2015 10:21 AM
Comment #397714

KAP,

“Congress has the right to change Birthright citizenship.”

No, it doesn’t.

Read United States v Wong Kim Ark. You will be enlightened.

Blaine,

Trump appeals to the basest of the base. Earlier you wrote the “voters are tired of politicians not fulfilling the promises they make”, yet here’s Trump, making promises he couldn’t dream of fulfilling, and, you yourself admit it, but the base is buying it.

The lack of any sense of irony here is simply breathtaking.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 22, 2015 11:50 AM
Comment #397715
What Trump has done is change the rules on political correctness.

OK, he has challenged progressive language. I don’t really care. All I want to know is what policies he is going to implement or not. You can talk the talk, but that doesn’t mean you can walk to walk.

The first thing out of the mouth of your side is “racism”. The left shuts down all debate by attacks of racism.
Absolutely true. The left does use an accusation of racism as a cudgel in debates. That still doesn’t exonerate racist attitudes or sentiments. I’m not saying that you or other Watchblog conservatives are racists, but the recent discussions regarding immigration have wandered into territory that troubles me.
What I said was that Trump has dialed in on the grievances of the voters; and no amount of quoting laws will satisfy the voters anger toward politicians who have promised for decades to do something about illegals invading America and have not.
Voters might genuinely feel angry, but they have little reason to be. Illegal crossings across the border with Mexico are a fraction of what they were a decade ago. Obama has done exactly as he has promised and implemented a system to prevent some Americans from being deported as they await their legal status, so there are no broken promises there. Now, there are legions of conservative politicians who promised unicorns such as impenetrable walls and mass deportations of 10 million people. Obviously, those promises were never going to be kept, but only a truly stupid voter should have believed shenanigans like that.
it was never the Intention of the 14th amendment to create situations (like the recent Chinese birth hotel) that allow illegals to come here for the sole purpose of gaining US benefits.
When the 14th amendment was adopted, the US had open borders with unrestricted immigration, so nobody could have even conceived of someone living here illegally. Perhaps we should return to the system of the mid 19th century and honor the wishes of the 14th amendment’s drafters?

Regardless, the Lynch v. Clarke court case was well-known to the people in the 1860s. Several of the senators and representatives who drafted the 14th amendment are on the record saying that the amendment did not overturn that precedent.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 22, 2015 12:13 PM
Comment #397718

It would help if my opposition understood the meaning of the word “jurisdiction” as used in the 14th Amendment.

“Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 22, 2015 2:04 PM
Comment #397720

Warren, Please show me where in the 14th amendment does it say that an illegal immigrant may come and give birth here and her child is an automatic citizen?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 5:45 PM
Comment #397721

Rich, I believe a president could use executive action to enforce the entire 14th Amendment and order that babies born in the US of non-citizens would no longer be granted automatic citizenship.

To overcome this order congress would have to act or a case, with standing, would have to be brought before the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 22, 2015 6:36 PM
Comment #397722

Royal, I guess with congress being in a stale mate on the issue the President could take action thus forcing congress to act, but I doubt this president will. I am all for humanitarian aid to people and letting women come here to give birth or anyone for that matter in need of medical aid especially if the medical facilities in their home country are poorly operated but their babies becoming automatic U.S. citizens, NO WAY!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 6:53 PM
Comment #397723

KAP,

“Please show me where in the 14th amendment does it say that an illegal immigrant may come and give birth here and her child is an automatic citizen?”

Please show me in the 14th Amendment where the term “illegal immigrant” is even defined.

There was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant” when it was adopted in 1868.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 22, 2015 6:58 PM
Comment #397724

Your right Rocky it doesn’t so explain to me why we should reward someone who came here illegally to have a baby automatic citizenship for her child? The 14th amendment was to give free slaves automatic citizenship some of which fought in the Civil War. So tell me where an illegal should be rewarded?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 7:14 PM
Comment #397725

Also Rocky, And subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. clearly the mother is NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction and the child is to young to even know what jurisdiction is and by all rights the mother should along with her child be deported for entering the country illegally in the first place.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #397727

”..clearly the mother is NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction.”

What are you talking about? The US or a state of the US could not prosecute her if she was arrested for a criminal act? Absent diplomatic status or some other special legal circumstance, a person in the territory of the US is under the jurisdiction of the US. Period.

Posted by: Rich at August 22, 2015 7:52 PM
Comment #397728

Jurisdiction in the sense that she holds no allegiance to the U.S. Rich. As far as legalities the she is under U.S. jurisdiction for being here illegally and should be along with her child DEPORTED.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 8:16 PM
Comment #397729

Let me clarify, a woman who holds “no allegiance to the U. S.” Does the child born here of say a French couple who are touring the U. S. of a woman who is pregnant considered a U. S. citizen?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 8:50 PM
Comment #397730

Come on! That is an unusual meaning of jurisdiction. It commonly and routinely means the right of a state to subject a person to its laws and to enforce such laws.

Posted by: Rich at August 22, 2015 8:52 PM
Comment #397731

“No allegiance” to the US by the mother has nothing to do with whether or not the child is a US citizen. It is under our law. There is nothing in the Constitution about a mother or father’s allegiance. The child may also hold dual citizenship under the laws of France but that doesn’t negate the child’s US citizenship.

The other major country to have birthright citizenship is Canada. I don’t know about you, but that seems to me to be pretty good company.

Posted by: Rich at August 22, 2015 9:03 PM
Comment #397732

Rich, The original question was, Why should the U. S. reward an illegals child citizenship? A woman enters the country illegally for the sole purpose of having her child here.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 9:48 PM
Comment #397733

Rich I just googled Canada’s birthright citizenship and found that Canada is attempting to resolve their anyone born on Canadian soil is a citizen to depend on the birth parents status in Canada. You see unlike the U. S. Canada is getting smart about just letting anyone have a baby there and that child is automaticly a Canadian citizen.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 9:58 PM
Comment #397734

KAP,

“Why should the U. S. reward an illegals child citizenship?”

Since apparently you didn’t bother to take the time to look up “United States v Wong Kim Ark” I’m not at all surprised that you seem confused on the point of law.

Here is a link;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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,

All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The bottom line is if Trump or whoever wants to change the law it will most likely require an Article 5 Convention.

Good luck with that.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 22, 2015 10:35 PM
Comment #397735

Rocky I suggest you read article 5 of the 14th amendment, I quote “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” So Article 5 convention is not needed. Congress can change thru LEGISLATION the provisions of this amendment.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 10:53 PM
Comment #397736

Sorry that’s Section 5

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 11:01 PM
Comment #397737

Section 5, by its plain language, simply authorizes Congress to pass legislation to “enforce… the provisions” not to change them.

Posted by: Rich at August 22, 2015 11:16 PM
Comment #397738

Rich,
according to the Heritage foundation guide to the constitution, Congress already has tried to change by using section 5 of the 14th amendment in the late 1990’s Birthright citizenship. It was through strong opposition from immigration activist that it failed. So by what they did in the past can be tried again. There are in fact many Amendments that have the section 5 like clause added to them.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 11:25 PM
Comment #397739

Rich, Also by enforce wouldn’t that concern ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS from coming to this country just to birth their children. If a person is here legally is one thing but ILLEGALLY is another.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 11:34 PM
Comment #397740

by using section 5, If a person is here LEGALLY Birthright citizenship applies, but if you ILLEGALLY entered the country Birthright citizenship does NOT apply. That would through legislation enforce the Birthright clause.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 11:43 PM
Comment #397741

KAP,


Again from the Cornell link;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

“Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power by section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed to enforce the Amendment.”

You have your sources, I have the Cornell Law School.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 22, 2015 11:44 PM
Comment #397742

Rocky, Read my last 3 comments. I think I covered ways of ENFORCING the 14th.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 22, 2015 11:51 PM
Comment #397743

KAP,

You do understand there was no such thing as an “illegal” immigrant when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 22, 2015 11:51 PM
Comment #397744

KAP,

The first law passed by Congress that had anything to do with immigration by “undesirables” was the “Paige Act” passed in 1875, and it had nothing to do with persons born here.

The 14th Amendment was certified in 1868.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 23, 2015 12:01 AM
Comment #397745

Rocky, We are talking about Birthright and the 14th are we not? By enforcing Birthright of the 14th using section 5 let me clarify, if a woman is here LEGALLY her child is considered a citizen, but if the woman entered the country ILLEGALLY and emphasis on ILLEGALLY her child may NOT be considered a citizen through Birthright. Through that congress would be ENFORCING by legislation.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at August 23, 2015 12:13 AM
Comment #397746

KAP,

Sorry, but nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it define a “legal” or “illegal” immigrant.
The Supreme Court established in US v Wong that any child born to an immigrant couple with a permanent domicile, regardless if the parents were citizens of another country, became a citizen of the United States, and, that this status could not be taken away by any state.
Congress only has the jurisdiction to enforce the Amendment as it stands, and even that came from the fact that this Amendment was about giving citizenship to former slaves so that Congress could enforce the laws in the South.

You want to change the law it requires an Article V convention, that is a fact

I don’t know where you get you information but everywhere I have looked says the same as the Cornell Law School.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 23, 2015 12:29 AM
Comment #397747


Apparently two brothers, claiming to be Trump supporters, beat up a homeless Hispanic man in Boston on Wednesday.

From the NYT;

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/21/us/ap-us-homeless-man-attacked.html?_r=0

“One of the brothers later told police Trump “was right” about deporting “all these illegals,” according to a police report.”

Trump was, well, Trump;

“After being told about the attack at a press conference ahead of New Hampshire town hall on Wednesday evening, Trump said it was the first he’d heard of it.

“I think that would be a shame,” he said, before adding: “I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. And they are very passionate.”

Trump walked back his remarks on Friday;

“Boston incident is terrible. We need energy and passion, but we must treat each other with respect,” Trump tweeted after coming under criticism for failing to condemn the attack more strongly. “I would never condone violence.”’

Except his incendiary rhetoric will most likely continue to incite it among the rubes that follow him.

My main question about all this would be how can you possibly tell whether a Hispanic man, homeless or not, is an illegal?

Seems to me these two rocket surgeons might be just the tip of the iceberg.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 23, 2015 10:46 AM
Comment #397751

The meaning of the word “jurisdiction” as used in the 14th Amendment refers to allegiance (“not subject to some foreign power”).

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…”

” James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 23, 2015 3:14 PM
Comment #397767

Royal,

You are going to beat this issue to death. The Supreme Court has interpreted what the term “jurisdiction” means in the 14th Amendment. In simple language, all persons born in the US who are not children of officially recognized representatives of foreign governments residing in the US are citizens of the US. The exception simply recognized the traditional and customary practice of diplomatic immunity from US legal jurisdiction. Take the time to read a quote from the article you linked:

“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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Posted by: Rich at August 23, 2015 7:02 PM
Comment #397772

Rich…please explain why the word “aliens” is being ignored by you and others.

For more good reading on the subject please go to the democrat side.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 23, 2015 7:55 PM
Comment #397773

Wing Kim Ark’s parents were aliens.

Posted by: Warren Porter at August 23, 2015 8:25 PM
Comment #397774

It is not being ignored. “..foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors..” Now, who do think the “who” in the phrase refers to?

Posted by: Rich at August 23, 2015 8:28 PM
Comment #397775

“Wing Kim Ark’s parents were aliens.”

How obvious!

Posted by: Rich at August 23, 2015 9:06 PM
Comment #397790

At last…now we know.

Foreigners are from another nation.

Aliens are from another planet.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 1:10 PM
Comment #397795

Blaine-
Look, if you really understood the aims of the Constitution, and quit pretending that somehow, magically, the men of the 1700s colonies have exactly your modern political attitudes, you would realize that a lot of recent Republican failures have been pretty predictable.

The House was meant to be reactive to short term politics, but the Senate and Presidency were designed to be more detached from that, and the Supreme Court was designed by the framers to be utterly detached from politics once the appointment and confirmation process were done.

Trump is the pied piper. He’s playing the tune of “You can get everything you want,” and leading the GOP and its voters on a merry journey into the wilderness for his own glorification.

Not that he wasn’t preceded by, say, most of the Republican candidate field.

If you’ve stirred people up into being upset, maybe you can provide the cure for that upset, by promising them to undo what’s upsetting them. Trouble is, psychological manipulation isn’t a good replacement for true leadership.

You know, the thing is, for years I saw the illegal immigration problem increase under Republicans. They were very laissez faire about enforcement of it, especially since many of their contributors rely on the lowball labor this creates. Now that Democrats are in charge, it’s perceived as a threat and blamed on Obama, who, despite strong evidence to the contrary, is depicted as coddling undocumented immigrants.

I believe in security. I think, though, that this country is so rich that it’s going to, by market forces alone, attract many people to its shores. People are coming here to work, to make a better life here than they could possibly make back home. I think we have a decision to make: we can either co-opt this, or waste time, resources, and opporturnities fighting it.

We need to make it cheaper and easier to immigrate legally, giving people greater incentive to do so. I think they’ll do it. You can talk about the quality of the people who come in, but in my experience, too many judge quality by the color of skin or the roughness of appearance, things that aren’t necessarily relevant to how the children or the immigrant ultimately turns out.

We also need to clear the decks of decades worth of wreckage. Some guy screaming about immigrants taking our jobs can talk himself blue, but that’s nothing compared to the difficulty of uprooting years worth of undocumented immigrants who have integrated themselves into society.

Somebody said it was like being forced to give room and board to somebody to a burglar who broke in, but in many cases these people were part of the community for years, or raised here for the most part. It’s more like finding out that a person who had been renting your room was a fugitive from justice for years, this despite being a typically hard-working, underpaid manual laborer.

I think it would be best to have a process for normalizing their status, especially since it would mean the remaining new undocumented cases would stand out considerably more. It’s easier to hide among millions than hundreds of thousands.

In general, my attitude is that Birthright Citizenship is one of the primary checks on government power. Only citizens can vote, so if the government has less role in deciding who is a citizens, beyond naturalization, if you are American because you were born here, it can’t simply shape the rules to create the electorate it wants. The People control their own citizenship.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2015 1:53 PM
Comment #397800

In general, my attitude is that Birthright Citizenship is one of the primary checks on government power.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2015 1:53 PM

Brilliant! Almost a mind meld with Jefferson and Adams. We can be certain that these men, who believed in three branches of government to be primary checks on government power, just didn’t think deeply enough about adding “Birthright Citizenship” to our founding documents.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 2:35 PM
Comment #397801

I will coin a new phrase that Daugherty and his Leftie clan can adopt.

DESIRE CITIZENSHIP

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 2:38 PM
Comment #397802

In a desire to prolong the “Ponzi Scheme” of Social Security the Left recognizes that they need more suckers. Open borders recruits more dupes.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 2:54 PM
Comment #397805

Royal Flush-
I sincerely hope that you don’t run any civics class. The checks and balances are multiple and interlocking. The division of power into three branches is JUST ONE.

More to the point, did you note the language of the clause about amendments? The clause the framers put in there? It’s quite simple, really:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

You know, it should give you pause to recall that Adams and Jefferson were likely at odds on the very notion of a Bill of Rights, hell, on the Constitution itself! It should, but it won’t, because you’ve conceived of them as some sort of unified hive-mind who all happen, by the way, to agree completely with you.

The truth is, Adams and others didn’t think the Bill of Rights was necessary. Free Speech, the Right To Bear Arms, Due Process, the Ban on Double Jeopardy, etc. They thought the representative nature of the government would protect everybody.

Turns out that these provisions were extraordinarily useful to us; So are the things Jefferson opposed, the centralized, strong government which allows us to govern a huge nation, to be a predominant military power and a prominent economic one. America would not be so strong if it continued down the road of the Articles of Confederation, or something like it.

You see only one side of many things, and that’s a shame. The truth was, it was the collaboration and compromise of the Framers which made our nation both great and possible. They recognized that the nation would not survive if one faction or another tried to dominate by force, that it would only endure if it held through joint consensus about the shape of the government.

The 14th Amendment makes clear what was once only implied, only traditional: That you are an American Citizen if you’re born American. It had to be made clear because Roger Taney and his court issued a judgment so insidious on the subject that the rights of citizenship had to be reaffirmed on explicit grounds.

And it’s good that it was. As we’ve grown into a modern country, with all kinds of different identification requirements- hell you yourselves would require people to prove their citizenship to vote!

Why complicate that? Why require people to carry around geneaologies in order to prove their citizenship? If we had done Jus Sanguinis instead of Jus Solis, we would be a much different, much less stable, much more fractured country. The fact that all the children of those who live within these borders born here live as citizens of it makes us one people at heart, free to mix together and become something different than just a bunch of confederated ethnic enclaves. I am the child of Germans, Scots, Irish, and English, and others I know mix still more nations into their blood. We might start our identification with some other place, but because of the Law of our Home Soil, we all end up Americans, in the end.

I don’t share the fearful, terrorized attitude that would allow me to forfeit the birthright of my children for the sake of your fears.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment #397807

“…you are an American Citizen if you’re born American”

Please, don’t shine your beacon of brilliance upon me any more Mr. Daugherty.

Please don’t shatter any more of my ill-conceived notions. Next thing you’ll tell me is that I am a male because I was born a male.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 3:44 PM
Comment #397811

Off subject and very interesting.

“President Obama is the first president in 122 years, since Benjamin Harrison was in office, who has not seen a major hurricane strike the U.S. during his time in office. In a statement on its website, NOAA expressed concern that Americans might suffer from “hurricane amnesia.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/noaa-hurricane-drought-now-record-118-months

Better yet, Americans may suffer MMGW amnesia.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 4:35 PM
Comment #397826

“…just didn’t think deeply enough about adding “Birthright Citizenship” to our founding documents.”

It was common law. They didn’t think that it would be necessary.

Posted by: Rich at August 24, 2015 7:22 PM
Comment #397831

Ah, yes Rich. Except for blacks and Indians.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 24, 2015 7:58 PM
Comment #397844

Warren Porter and Stephen Daugherty, sorry I don’t have enough time to keep up with your comments. It’s not that I don’t want to respond, I just don’t have time. Most of the time I have to respond on an IPhone. By the time I get to write a response, 20/30 comments have been written.

Posted by: Blaine at August 25, 2015 2:57 PM
Post a comment