Apr 21, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a young man I observed that those who saw racism in everything were usually the most racist. That analysis has proven itself over time. Today the accusation is so frequently made on Democratic Party media outlets, very recently by Beto O’Rourke against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that it’s now difficult to know who is not a racist. If a Jew, the most persecuted race in modern world history, is racist as O’Rourke says, then who is exempt? But the term is used several times a night on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC news outlets. Presumably everyone is racists except Democrats who decry everyone else as such.
As a result white Democratic presidential contenders are apologizing for and fleeing from their whiteness. Joe Bidden and Bernie Sanders, are “old white men,” we are told. The party seems intent on purging the stain of whiteness from itself. Sanders, thus far ignores it while instead apologizing for his great wealth and use of “tax breaks.” Biden recently apologized to Anita Hill for the “whiteness” of the Senate Judiciary Committee he once chaired.
Beto O’Rourke, formerly Robert Morris, (name changed allegedly to attract hispanic voters) recently admitted having benefited from what he called “white privilege.” He told a group, “Absolutely undeniable. I have been arrested twice. But that didn’t come to define me or narrow my options in life. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I’m a white man.”
Democrats also see everywhere “white nationalism,” a form of racism, and attempt to attach the label to anyone who wishes to enforce existing, longstanding, immigration law, the same law enforced by Barack Obama. Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently tweeted, “Stephen Miller is a white nationalist. The fact that he still has influence on policy and political appointments is an outrage.” This, coming from probably the most anti-jewish (and therefore racist) member of congress. Unable to show clear documentation for the charge, supporters acknowledged that although they could not X-ray for “racist bones,” even so, Miller (and by extension President Donald Trump his boss) is still guilty of “soft-core” white nationalism. In other words, they are white nationalists because they are white, the majority, and in power.
Since whites participated in slavery in our early history thirteen Democratic Presidential hopefuls attending the Al Sharpton founded National Action Network’s annual conference April 3, committed to sign Congresswoman Jackson Lee’s recently introduced bill creating a commission to study reparations for African-Americans. Most saw it as a way of addressing the persistence of racism and white supremacy today. Cory Booker said, “It will begin to right the economic scales of past harms.”
Senator Kamala Harris, “Justice means recognizing domestic terrorism, including white nationalist extremism,” which she noted, “should be considered a national security priority.” Senator Bernie Sanders said he would sign, then returned to his racist central theme, “We have a president who is a racist, who is a sexist, who is a homophobe, who is a xenophobe, and who is a religious bigot.”
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand would sign as would Congressman Beto O’Rourke, Governor John Hickenlooper and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Indeed no presidential candidate at the gathering opposed it. All supported “racial restitution,” whatever that means.
The problem with such legislation is no white person now living had anything to do with slavery 154 years ago. Even then, it was almost entirely the whites of the north that gave their lives to free the slaves. It was whites that established and maintained the Underground Railroad at considerable risk to themselves and it was white author Harriet Beecher Stow in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who brought attention to the moral issue of slavery. Even today, race baiters need to be reminded that it was whites that elected the first half-black president, Barack Obama.
Of course, there were abuses of the past. Indians, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Quakers, Jews and Mormons can all make cases. Race baiters want whites to acknowledge that they are racist and oppressive by nature and should have what they call “white guilt.” The only remedy they seem to accept is compensation, but this is never enough.
But their focus is almost entirely on the blacks and slavery and the then perpetrators and victims are dead and today’s descendants, many generations later, were not wronged. How do they make the case for their receiving compensation for wrongs committed to their ancestors without committing an injustice to those now living—even if it were their ancestors who committed the injustices mentioned? Would they not be the source of new injustice?
Why should I pay for the injustices of my ancestors, even worse, when they may not have been the perpetrators? And why should my black neighbor receive a benefit forced from me without creating an injustice to me? Under this logic his posterity will need to atone to my posterity. Could not the same arguments be used against them in a later century?
Today most white Americans are of many races and not racist. Insisting that all whites should have “white guilt “ because of presumed ancestral injustices or confederate association only exacerbates racism, the very thing race baiters insist they wish to end. Then, are not race baiters the “real” racists? That the news gives their racism so much attention should be objectionable to everyone.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 5, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most think that the 2020 presidential election is almost two years away. Not so!! The first vote, the vote of the billionaires who choose our candidates, is happening right now. It happens every four years and Democrats and Republicans simply change places. This time it is the Democrats lining up with alms bowl in hand—not to their constituents or the little donors that used to be their base long ago, but the super rich who they pretend to be against.
Candidates each take their “dance” before the billionaire club and are picked by one or more of them. Almost everyone has noticed the dramatic shift to socialism made by the Democratic Party presidential candidates, not because their constituents necessarily demand such, but because their real bosses, the moneyed elite, do. Their moneyed sponsors, primarily George Soros , the leading funder of far-left causes and elections the past two decades, who is said to have spent $25 million on Hilary Clinton and other democratic candidates in 2016 and another $15 million in the recent midterms, and Tom Steyer, who “promised to spend at least $30 million to elect progressives this campaign season,” making him the “most important Democratic donor in the United States.”
Tucker Carlson reported last week on Fox News, “This coming Saturday, Sen. Cory Booker is attending a Silicon Valley fundraiser. It is hosted by Gary and Laura Lauder. They are heirs to the $14 billion Estee Lauder fortune. Kamala Harris just had a fundraiser in Beverly Hills that was attended by an army of wealthy studio execs. Kristin Gillibrand did not even start her campaign for president before asking the permission of Wall Street.”
Yes, Republicans do something similar when it is their turn to oppose a seated Democrat president. Trump was the exception as he financed his own primary making him the only presidential candidate since William McKinley that is not largely purchased by wealthy donors. There are more Democrat political billionaire activists than Republican, taken together Soros money and organizations, and now, Steyer’s money, easily dwarf that of the Koch brothers, said to be funding most of the right side of the political spectrum.
The billionaire club easily favors the Democratic Party and the far-left side of the political spectrum. What is far worse is that Soros and Steyer seem not to be promoting rank and file Democrats but instead radicals who want to upend our political system. It appears that the rich who initially controlled the Republican Party, then both major parties for over 100 years, now has much greater dominance over the Democratic Party. Should they succeed, we will become a socialist country.
So why are the super rich overwhelmingly progressive—code for socialist. Tucker Carlson argues “They love mass immigration — it brings them servants. They support federally-mandated snobbery, masquerading as environmentalism. Abortion is essentially a sacrament to them, especially when practiced in poor neighborhoods” (February 21, 2019).
What is certain is that essentially socialism allows them to command society with their money, to right all wrongs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex is now wondering if society should limit its number of children. Everything is managed from cradle to grave. Other forms of government deny them this kind of control.
So if most of the billionaire club are progressives and Democrat why do they overwhelmingly fund the party and philosophy that purports to seize their wealth and control? Have not Democrats identified the enemy as “old white men,” which most billionaires are? Taxing is their favorite instrument of control and Democrats have been for higher taxes on the “rich” for decades. Cortez advocates 70%, Elizabeth Warren even higher.
Don’t they pay more taxes because they make more? Yes, but only to a point. The secret is that the rich will never pay more than 24% no matter how much they make. And they, being the financiers of the presidential candidates, will never be required to.
Carlson explains how it works“The top federal income tax rate stops at about 500 grand. So what’s the difference between someone making $500,000 a year and someone making $50 million a year? The answer: The richer one can much more easily evade paying full freight, and they do.”
The rich that the Democrats want to tax are not the “real rich,” only those who make less than $500,000 per year. Those making more are locked in to no more than 27% and the richest of the rich only 24%. “According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of Americans pay about 27 percent of their income in taxes. But the top tenth of 1 percent — that’s people who make $35 million a year — pay less than 26 percent. And the top thousandth of a percent — the absolute richest — pay less than 24 percent. In other words, past a certain point, the richer you are, the less you pay. That’s why billionaires back socialism. It doesn’t cost them much.
The first election is theirs as they fund the candidates who share their socialist views and get a tax cut as well. The show part of the election, the one acknowledged by everyone, does come in two years but well after their candidates are safely placed to win. The masses then salivate over which one of of the anointed the moneyed elite have preselected for us.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 11, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I flew to El Paso, Texas to see for myself what was going on at the border at the height of the partial government shutdown standoff between Pelosi/Schumer and President Donald Trump. I wanted to interview those on the ground who really knew; thus bypassing entirely the Republican presses that said we were in a border crisis and the Democrat presses that said we weren’t and that we do not need a wall. El Paso, over 800,000 population, and Juarez, Mexico, over 1,400,000, one north of the border, the other south, seemed to be an ideal location to ask the experts.
This is what I learned. Mexican cartels, not the Mexican government, control entry into the United States. They are the de facto government south of the border. Cartels have carved up the important crossing locations and migrants do not get into the United States without first paying at least $100 per person to the controlling cartel. They enforce their rules.
Agents do not seek-out illegal aliens as they once did. Aliens come to them. Most illegals, perhaps 80%, are referred to as OTM’s (Other Than Mexican). Mexicans, when caught, are simply returned to Mexico but the OTM’s have the right to have a judge hear their cases, thus they remain until that happens.
Caravans are a new phenomenon. These are financed, we were told, by billionaire George Soros. his groups organize and instruct perspective migrants in their rights. After crossing Mexico, these people approach the border in small groups of nine to twenty and immediately seek a border patrol vehicle to approach and surrender, “Here I am!” They know that they will be taken to a holding center and cared for. These centers, designed for 80 to 90 migrants, now hold 200 to 250. They are so crowded that there exists virtually no room between migrants.
They know they will be released into the general population after receiving a NTA (Notice To Appear) before a judge, but they also know not to appear as 90% will be sent home because they do not qualify for asylum. But now they are in the United States. The game changes to “hide and seek” until the United States changes its laws. Why? One officer told us that they were awaiting the expected “paradigm shift.” He did not explain what he meant but I inferred that Trump will be removed from power and their group enormity will force a path to full citizenship. He added, “When this hope of being able to stay, is removed—this incentive—the flood will end.”
Agents invited us to visit three unsecured areas within thirty miles of where we were. One was Mount Cristo Rey located between the two cities but a good distance within the U.S. side. It was identified as a place of danger. The sign posted on the 12-foot-wide well-trod trail going up the hill to the statue warned, “If you’re going to tour Mt. Cristo Rey please contact police department at (575) 589-6600 or at 1000 McNutt Rd..” Why would an area, within the country, and close to Border Patrol headquarters, be too dangerous for Americans to visit without first notifying police? Because it is also a corridor for drug and human trafficking between the two countries and you might disappear, be raped, or robbed.
A second was a construction site on the U.S. side of the border accessed by an opening in an 18 foot tall border wall through which construction trucks and workers frequently passed, this with no visibly mounted cameras. An almost dry Rio Grande River just south of the construction site had no barrier of any kind to prevent a crossing from either side and then through this opening.
A third site, some 25 miles west of El Paso, was the connecting point between a high fence, perhaps 18 feet, and a four or five feet high fence thereafter. The much shorter fence was designed to stop only automobiles and Mexico was easily accessed from both sides over the top or sliding under it. I had one foot in Mexico and another in the United States simultaneously. Picture very large steel X’s every ten feet with three horizontal cross beams connecting them. This fence was said to continue this way for some distance west but replaced with mere barbed wire thereafter.
The fence was marked as having been built in 2008 but it was no barrier to drug or human trafficking or coming across unnoticed at will. We were totally alone for a solid hour before we saw a helicopter flying the line. There was no evidence of technology either and we were but 20 miles from one of the most populated areas on the entire border.
We also learned that often the countries from which immigrants come do not want them back as they were happy to rid themselves of their impoverished or criminal class. Twenty years ago the border could be controlled by 5,000 agents now 35,000 agents are required. Even U.S. troops are needed to assist.
No one argued that this was not a very serious crisis, nor that a border wall was not critical in ending it. Border patrol agents confirmed “there is no border security outside a wall.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org..
Jan 28, 2019 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph.D
No one has been more outspoken against the globalist agenda than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the very antithesis of their plans for world government. This is primarily the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, have come out of the closet to oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists are now praising his newly negotiated and rolled out October I, 2018 USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe first economically then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with it. It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…”. Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018)
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism—everything else he has done suggests otherwise But he has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he said was so “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 27, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Birth tourism, presently running rampart in the United States, is where foreigners intentionally coordinate their delivery dates with tourism ensuring that the birth happens while in this country. They remain the weeks necessary for the new birth certificate to be used to generate a passport for their newborn. Maternal centers, some sleazy others high end, created to accommodate the wait, run lucrative businesses (perhaps $50,000 per birth) encouraging “clients” from China, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan and Mexico primarily. Their “tour” ends with their child having citizenship and a passport with only a few weeks invested in this country. They return to their country with the child raised having dual citizenship.
Why is this attractive to them? Mart Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, shared four reasons for its popularity. First, if things go bad in one’s country at least the child, with a passport, can get out. Second, when the child is an adult he can sponsor his folks for immigration. For them “It is a “kind of retirement program,”with benefits. Third, it is a way for the chid to get cheaper tuition in American colleges as“foreign students have to pay more than U.S. citizens.” Fourth, it is a way for the child to avoid the draft in his home country, he simply goes to America. All of this for a little tour in the U.S. while having a baby (“The Ingraham Angle,” October 30, 2018).
But this practice is specifically forbidden by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which reads in part: “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.”
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It was Howard who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted.
Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. If diplomats of high honor are specifically exempted from birthright citizenship, mere tourists, without any specific distinction, certainly would not have it. They not only have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere but are specifically identified as ineligible, and thus cannot have birthright citizenship.
On birthright citizenship President Donald Trump is on solid constitutional ground as expressed by the Founders of the 14th Amendment. Because this is a Civil War amendment designed to keep previously rebelling southern states from prohibiting ex-slaves, or their children, from having citizenship and because of the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” there exists no other interpretation without serious distortion of the amendment. Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment show no other interpretation. Birthright citizenship cannot be taken from those already citizens or their children.
Indians did not get citizenship until 1924 because they were not yet clearly, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. One “cannot owe allegiance to anybody else,” argued, Senator Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. That would most certainly exclude those proudly carrying their native flags in the recent caravan invasion of our border.
So how should Trump proceed in getting America back to the Constitution as written? First he must immediately issue an executive order ending the practice of birth tourism based upon his oath of office to defend and preserve the Constitution and by the specific ambassadors exclusionary clause of the authors of the 14th Amendment itself. He can count on the enemies of the republic to sue to block the execution of the order. Such normally take many months to process. This allows immigration and the wall to remain lead issues in the election. America demands closure on this issue and it will reelect him.
A statute solution through Congress in favor of ending the perversion of the Constitution with respect to birthright citizenship for anyone illegally crossing the border is the much preferred solution. Should the courts rule against a Trump executive order on birth tourism he will know the timing is not yet right for the same on the bigger immigration issue. Should they follow the Constitution as intended, he will, with the birth tourism issue in his favor, immediately do the larger issue by executive order as well, more especially if the opposition party, which supports open borders, retains the House, or looks to retain the House in 2020. This also would result in a suit so if in late 2019 a Republican retake of the House is probable, without obstruction from his own party, it might be better to wait for a statute solution through Congress.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Nov 12, 2018 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Most constitutional experts know that there exists no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. LibertyUnderFire and others have made this case for many years. Unfortunately House Speaker Paul Ryan, represents the class of politicians least informed on this subject when he said “As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear,” If he were a constitutionalist he would know better.
Currently the Democratic Party leadership do not care whether it is, or is not, constitutional as they view all illegal immigrants as future democrats. The ignorance of the establishment press too is overwhelming. So we make the case once again.
Most have sympathy for those who were infants or born here when their parents illegally crossed the border and have lived here all their lives and know no other country. The 14th Amendment seems to validate such sympathy IF WE IGNOR SIX WORDS: “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.” A more careful read, however, shows that such was specifically and purposely denied, not supported. Consider the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The purpose of the clause was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves, (already residents) and their descendants after the Civil War. It had nothing to do with immigration. Recipients were already subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and while here have a baby. That baby, (excluding the six words) then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegal’s born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment, (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom), to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and [already] subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
It was he who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted. Those crossing our borders illegally are clearly foreigners not residents, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus are specifically exempt from citizenship. Notice also the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here. The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows no other interpretation.
There is no such thing as automatic citizenship from this amendment without serious distortion of it. In fact, Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, addressing the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asked, “What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Those crossing our borders illegally have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere and thus cannot have birthright citizenship. How can a child of such a parentage have what his parents clearly do not have?
How many are born illegally in the United States per year? Statistics are difficult to validate but the Pew Hispanic Center study estimated 340,000 in 2008 alone and recent research has doubled illegal entry from 11 to 22 million, so births from illegals are also presumed double. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated the annual cost providing healthcare, education, and food stamps for many, and all other incidental costs at $2.4 billion—and that was based upon the presumed 11 million.
Citizenship was denied Native Americans until 1924 as they owed allegiance to their Sioux or Apache or Blackfoot, or whatever, Indian nations and thus were not yet “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the nation they lived within. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the conquering country. So just being on U.S. soil did not make them citizens automatically until the “jurisdiction thereof” part of the Amendment was satisfied..
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their pay checks home to Mexico and plan to return to their native land upon retirement with pensions and/or social security sent to their “first” country from the country they extracted their wealth—the United States. Some vote in Mexican elections from here. It is indeed hard to argue that they are not instead subject to the jurisdiction of another land other than the United States–and most admit it. The 14th Amendment specifically denies birthright citizenship.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
