DOUGLAS V. GIBBS <---------->RADIO <---------->BOOKS <---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <---------->DONATE

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Anchor Babies, and the 14th Amendment

"We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1919.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment declares that "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."

Thus, the argument for the citizenship for anchor babies.

Or is it?

The part of that clause that is often overlooked is in the words: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which means being born or naturalized in the United States is not necessarily enough to be a citizen.

To understand the context, one must be a student of history, and of the writings of the authors of the amendment.

Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, after hostilities ended the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States "legally," and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal rights.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem. Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 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. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring.

However, fearing that a future Congress may tinker with the act, the 14th Amendment to our Constitution was proposed, which upon ratification, would protect the provision of the 1866 Act from legislatures and the courts.

Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

So, understanding history, and the intention of the authors of the clause, it is clear that the clause specifically intends that those who are not born to American citizens have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.

Case law, via an activist judiciary, "interprets" the language to mean something it doesn't, and by altering the meaning to be something that is not in line with the original intent, as they have done with the rest of the Constitution, we have a constitutional crisis upon us that includes an invasion across the border that is literally being wrongly justified with a misinterpreted clause from the U.S. Constitution.

Anchor babies, who are not citizens of the United States using the appropriate definition of the 14th Amendment, are said to be 8% of births in the United States annually.

But these babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they were born of illegal immigrants who owe their allegiance to their home countries.

Therefore, if we are truly going to follow the law, when illegal immigrants are sent home, their children born inside America's borders need to go home with them.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Anchor babies 8% of births in U.S. annually - Examiner

14th Amendment: Is birthright citizenship really in the Constitution? - The Christian Science Monitor

Birthright Citizenship? - The Patriot Post

No comments: