{"id":92,"date":"2008-07-27T05:17:43","date_gmt":"2008-07-27T12:17:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/?p=92"},"modified":"2008-11-15T18:17:04","modified_gmt":"2008-11-16T01:17:04","slug":"author-of-14th-said-birthright-citizenship-excludes-%e2%80%98aliens%e2%80%99","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/?p=92","title":{"rendered":"Author of 14th said birthright citizenship excludes \u2018aliens\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Judge<\/a>Image via Wikipedia<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n

In the July issue of \u201cImprimis\u201d — an outreach publication of Michigan\u2019s free-market-oriented Hillsdale College — Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State San Bernardino, challenges the prevailing wisdom that the 14th Amendment bestows \u201cbirthright citizenship\u201d on the newborn child of any illegal alien who can manage to avoid deportation long enough to give birth — usually in a taxpayer-funded hospital.<\/p>\n

The 14th, adopted in 1868, was intended to make formal what the Civil War had accomplished de facto — the recognition that the former slaves were now citizens of the United States, with the full rights thereof. Thus (alongside some pretty odd stuff, including a provision that \u201cThe validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned\u201d) the 14th instructs us that \u201cAll 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Long considered uncontroversial — though just as long ignored in many of its implications (If the states are forbidden from infringing my federal rights, how can I be obliged to acquire a state \u201cpermit\u201d to carry a concealed weapon?) — the 14th is now believed to have created that obstacle to deportation of illegal immigrant women and their families known as the \u201canchor baby.\u201d<\/p>\n

The young mom may not be a citizen or even a legal resident, but the newborn is considered to be both: The newborn thus cannot be expelled, and our sense of common decency makes it difficult to envision expelling the mother but not the child.<\/p>\n

But what\u2019s that clause about \u201csubject to the jurisdiction\u201d doing in there, Professor Erler asks in his new paper, adapted from a speech delivered in Phoenix back on Feb. 12.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to the jurisdiction,\u201d notes professor Erler. \u201cBut this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.<\/p>\n

\u201cIndeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation\u2019s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a matter of allegiance, Sen. Howard insisted. The citizenship clause excludes not only Indians but also \u201cpersons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens (or) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.\u201d<\/p>\n

Did he say \u201caliens\u201d?<\/p>\n

Thus, professor Erler demonstrates, \u201c \u2018subject to the jurisdiction\u2019 does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. …<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is absurd, then, to believe the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens,\u201d Professor Erler continues. \u201cNor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance — or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nor has any Supreme Court decision ever squarely addressed this issue, the professor asserts.<\/p>\n

U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 1898, is often cited. And that case was wrongly decided because it confused the old birthright subjecthood of English common law — necessarily rejected by the Declaration of Independence, since English common law considered rebellion against the king to be a capital offense — with the new concept of consensual \u201ccitizenship,\u201d the professor argues.<\/p>\n

In any case, Wong Kim Ark is not on point because it dealt with the citizenship of a child born to LEGAL resident aliens, an entirely different matter from a mother who gives birth after having snuck into the country without permission, reduplicating her refusal to subject herself to the laws and jurisdiction of this country every day as she misrepresents and perjures herself by presenting fake documents in order to work, drive, sign up for utility services, and so on.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could be easily overturned\u201d by adopting the arguments contained in the powerful dissent by Chief Justice Fuller, Professor Erler asserts. But in any case, \u201cRepeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

His evidence? The Congress in 1923 made a universal offer to American Indians that they could become U.S. citizens if they wished. This was done by simple legislation, without any Constitutional amendment, Professor Erler points out. The Congress \u201ccould make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.\u201d<\/p>\n

The European Union \u201cis well on its way to becoming an administrative tyranny,\u201d Professor Erler points out. Nor would any homogeneous world state ruled from Brussels or The Hague or East 42nd Street — the dream of the \u201cno more borders\u201d crowd — be a constitutional democracy. Rather, it would be \u201cthe administration of \u2018universal personhood\u2019 without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed,\u201d the professor warns.<\/p>\n

Because no supernational government ever has or is ever likely to protect constitutional democracy, \u201cThe doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship,\u201d Professor Erler warns. \u201cUnless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n

Imagine. Why, in such a world, local cops would give illegal aliens a \u201cGet out of jail free\u201d card rather than hauling them in after a crash, but would take the side of invading federal agents with no demonstrated local jurisdiction in any dispute with a local citizen.<\/p>\n

In such a world, we\u2019d be told endlessly elastic federal \u201cspecies protection\u201d laws overrule our local property rights, including adjudicated state mining and grazing rights. We could be branded \u201ctrespassers\u201d on our own lands!<\/p>\n

In such a world, judges would draw their salaries from the same place as cops and prosecutors, and — instead of granting us a presumption of innocence — would refuse to even see you on your scheduled court date, siding with cops who lurk in ambush or even robot \u201cred light\u201d cameras, finding citizens guilty of traffic and other \u201cminor\u201d infractions (on nothing more than a government agent\u2019s or even a robot\u2019s word) 99 percent of the time, fattening their courthouse coffers and helping pay their own salaries with the resulting river of revenue.<\/p>\n

All pretty far-fetched, eh?<\/p>\n

\"Reblog<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Image via Wikipedia In the July issue of \u201cImprimis\u201d — an outreach publication of Michigan\u2019s free-market-oriented Hillsdale College — Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State San Bernardino, challenges the prevailing wisdom that the 14th Amendment bestows \u201cbirthright citizenship\u201d on the newborn child of any illegal alien who can manage to avoid […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-immigration"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pWqFl-1u","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=92"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=92"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=92"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vinsuprynowicz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=92"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}