The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and have a baby on this soil. That baby then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. Is this practice Constitutional?
For the casual reader the amendment seems to validate such: “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.” The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegals 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 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 into Section I. Those sneaking across our borders in the cover of darkness are clearly foreigners and thus specifically exempted from citizenship; the Constitution was not meant to protect those who are here illegally. Also notice the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here as well.
The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows this to be the view of the Senate. 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 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. If they in turn are used as sponsors for their parents in their quest for citizenship, such could be a million per year.
Citizenship was denied some of my ancestors and yours. Native Americans 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 sought citizenship in. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the newly embraced country. This was not granted until 1924 when this requirement was satisfied.
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their 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 the wealth- us. 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. Unfortunately for them, the U. S. Constitution specifically denies such citizenship.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
If anyone wonders how the new Arizona illegal immigration law, coming on board July 29, will affect Arizona, they need only to look at Prince William County, Virginia. They have had virtually the same law in effect for three years. Commissioner Cory Stewart who spearheaded that law said, “We had some of the same problems Arizona did. We had so many illegal immigrants coming into the county causing trouble, causing crime, and exploding the number of English as a Second Language students in our school system. We passed a pretty strict measure in 2007 and it has had great results.”
Under their law, Stewart said police must check the immigration status of persons “for a small crime, shoplifting, DUI, being drunk in public-any of those crimes.” They are then taken to a magistrate who normally “holds them in jail pending trial, because they are illegal immigrants and obviously there is a high risk of flight. They serve their sentences and we hand them over to federal authorities for deportation.”
The benefits of the new law were immediate and clear. The county experienced a 38% reduction in violent crimes, in the number of uninsured illegals giving birth in hospitals, and in English as a Second Language enrollment. All of this resulted in a drastic taxpayer cut, and popularity of the law soon soared to 80%. The law has saved lives with the drop in violent crimes. Illegals tended to move on to other Virginia counties, thus increasing their problems. As a result, and in spite of the fact that they initially ridiculed the new law, Fairfax county, and Montgomery County, MD soon implemented the same law as Prince William county.
When asked how many lawsuits were filed against the police or county by citizens claiming discrimination after the law went into effect, the answer was none. “There has not been one substantiated claim of racial profiling,” Stewart argued.
Of some note is the lack of national attention when a county was enforcing federal law, largely neglected by the Feds. It has also not been of particular interest to the Media. But when Arizona wanted to put an end to the violence spilling over the border (Phoenix is now the kidnapping capitol of North America) all hell turned on them. Now the Federal Government, who is supposed to protect the states, is suing its own state because the state is doing the job the government is constitutionally required to do.
In response to this suit, thousands of small contributors are sending money to support Arizona. Most contributors are retirees who cannot believe in their country’s unwillingness to defend it’s citizens. This money is coming from every state in the Union, and thus far amounts to over a half a million dollars- pocket change to the lobbying groups defending the President’s suit. The Feds are seen as the national bully and are not likely to merit well in the PR game as they pick on a state that is finally willing to stand up to them- even with a favorable (virtually managed) establishment press.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
If anyone wonders how the new Arizona illegal immigration law, coming on board July 29, will affect Arizona, they need only to look at Prince William County, Virginia. They have had virtually the same law in effect for three years. Commissioner Cory Stewart who spearheaded that law said, “We had some of the same problems Arizona did. We had so many illegal immigrants coming into the county causing trouble, causing crime, and exploding the number of English as a Second Language students in our school system. We passed a pretty strict measure in 2007 and it has had great results.”
Under their law, Stewart said police must check the immigration status of persons “for a small crime, shoplifting, DUI, being drunk in public-any of those crimes.” They are then taken to a magistrate who normally “holds them in jail pending trial, because they are illegal immigrants and obviously there is a high risk of flight. They serve their sentences and we hand them over to federal authorities for deportation.”
The benefits of the new law were immediate and clear. The county experienced a 38% reduction in violent crimes, in the number of uninsured illegals giving birth in hospitals, and in English as a Second Language enrollment. All of this resulted in a drastic taxpayer cut, and popularity of the law soon soared to 80%. The law has saved lives with the drop in violent crimes. Illegals tended to move on to other Virginia counties, thus increasing their problems. As a result, and in spite of the fact that they initially ridiculed the new law, Fairfax county, and Montgomery County, MD soon implemented the same law as Prince William county.
When asked how many lawsuits were filed against the police or county by citizens claiming discrimination after the law went into effect, the answer was none. “There has not been one substantiated claim of racial profiling,” Stewart argued.
Of some note is the lack of national attention when a county was enforcing federal law, largely neglected by the Feds. It has also not been of particular interest to the Media. But when Arizona wanted to put an end to the violence spilling over the border (Phoenix is now the kidnapping capitol of North America) all hell turned on them. Now the Federal Government, who is supposed to protect the states, is suing its own state because the state is doing the job the government is constitutionally required to do.
In response to this suit, thousands of small contributors are sending money to support Arizona. Most contributors are retirees who cannot believe in their country’s unwillingness to defend it’s citizens. This money is coming from every state in the Union, and thus far amounts to over a half a million dollars- pocket change to the lobbying groups defending the President’s suit. The Feds are seen as the national bully and are not likely to merit well in the PR game as they pick on a state that is finally willing to stand up to them- even with a favorable (virtually managed) establishment press.
Unfortunately should the Federal Government be victorious in making the Arizona law null and void it will do so for Prince William, Fairfax, and Montgomery counties as well. This will return additional crime and taxes to places that some time ago greatly reduced these problems. It will also leave us all much less defended, as no other state will dare to protect it’s citizens again.
If you wish to contribute to help Arizona defend herself from the Federal Government, please visit KeepAZSafe.com.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
Customs and Border Protection arrested about 52,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico in 2009. This number included countries known to export terrorism and the numbers from each actually caught, such as Afghanistan 4, Egypt 14, Iran 15, Iraq 16, Nigeria 29, Pakistan 41, Saudi Arabia 1, Somalia 19, Yemen 13, and North Korea 10. So much for national security. These numbers reflect only those caught, and who knows how many succeeded undetected. Border security is national security. If Mexicans can get in illegally, so can everyone else.
This is nothing new to the government. Their own 2005 study A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, admitted that “aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States” and that “members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.” In light of the need for greater border security exhibited by our failure to stop the September 11 attacks, it is difficult to believe that the Federal Government really cares.
With over one million illegal immigrants crossing the border each year (the government document cited above gave the number between 4 and 10 million in 2005 alone) how can anyone argue that this does not constitute an invasion and a threat to our language, economy, culture, and now even our security? A major purpose of the Constitution noted in the Preamble is to “provide for the common defense.” Common Defense is again given as one of the four powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 wherein eight qualifiers dealing with what was meant by common defense are mentioned–all with a military aspect. The indisputable collective intent is to protect this people. Is intentionally failing to do so treason?
Illegal immigrants from terroristic countries already declared war by destroying the Twin Towers and damaging the Pentagon. Treason is defined in the Constitution as consisting of one of two things: “levying War” and “adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It appears that the Government’s position is intentionally not sealing the border; are they then guilty of giving the enemy “aid and comfort?” Proving intent on the part of the President or Congress might still be difficult, but it is time someone suggested such. We identified Iraq, Afghanistan, and Al-Qaida as responsible and went to war on them as a result. Yet we have done virtually nothing to keep other terrorists from entering the country at will on our very vulnerable under belly.
Without “common defense” one ceases to be a nation. The Federal Government has relinquished its most important function. Instead of being sobered by a state attempting to enforce already existing Federal law to protect its people and border, the Government is attacking its own states and people. The Federal Government reacts as though it is threatened by the national popularity of the Arizona law (now over 60%), and by the list of over a dozen states contemplating doing the same thing. Strangely, the Government sees Arizona as the national threat, not the illegals, who may include those from terroristic countries wishing to blow up our buildings filled with legal American citizens.
Some argue that the border is too big to protect. China successfully kept out barbarians many centuries ago with the Great Wall and they had no razor wire, drones, machine guns, motion detectors, cameras, helicopters and gigantic earth moving equipment as we do. It is the will to do so that does not exist in either party but more especially the Democratic Party. The money we spend in defending other countries’ back yards could build and secure ours many times.
But there seems a deliberate attempt somewhere in government not to protect us. Mr. President, would you please stop fighting your own people and protect us as the U. S. Constitution demands? And please, no more half-hearted efforts like finally giving us 150,000 National Guardsmen when we need 750,000, and new amnesties that only encourage an extension of our current invasion. Please seal our borders, or resign so someone else can.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
A country ceases to remain a country when it ceases to protect its borders. The Roman Empire ceased to exist for that very reason, coupled with moral decay.
Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to “provide for the common defense” and Article IV requires that they ”protect each of them (the states) against invasion.” With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job. Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue. Fortunately, Arizonians understand. Arizona did not make illegal immigration illegal, the federal government did.
The new bill, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is the direct result of the Federal Government not protecting its citizens from invasion. It has nothing to do with race or any other subject. It has to do with enforcing an already existing law. It simply codifies federal law into state law. If the feds won’t protect us, the state government will. Thank you Arizona for protecting our Constitution, and other states should follow.
For a person to be stopped, he or she must already be offending the law. Once stopped, those suspected of being illegal immigrants are asked to provide papers. But the stop itself must be for other reasons. The actual law reads: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
This procedure is similar to that followed when a driver is weaving from one side of the road to another. The stopping officer demands a breathalyzer test and asks to see a drivers license and vehicle registration papers. If something does not feel right the officer may also check the vehicle against those that have been reported stolen or the individual against a wanted list. The Constitutionally ignorant have made a case for the unconstitionality of the law on the basis of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Such could be argued for any of the regular aforementioned police activities. But as noted the law prohibits unreasonable searches.
For individuals or cities showing sympathy for those breaking federal law, Arizona would remind them that they are accomplices to a crime and now break state law as well. The bill reads: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” All this could be avoided if the federal government did its Constitutionally mandated function and provided for the common defense by protecting us against invasion.
Under pressure, President Obama has finally agreed to send 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border. However, that is about one seventh of what is needed. The phrase too little too late comes to mind.
All are encouraged to spend their vacation time in the lovely state of Arizona to soften the blow of the boycott against them.
I am thrilled that Nancy Pelosi finally understands the need to politicize the churches. Actually they played a major role in bringing on the American Revolution as they, from the pulpit, encouraged their parishioners to actively advocate liberty. With respect to liberty, the loss of such has proceeded to the point that today you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution. Ministers, this is the Second American Revolution, using words rather than muskets for now. Your people need to be encouraged to stand up for freedom while they still can. In most revolutions Christians are among the first victims.
Now Nancy, illegal immigrants are those whose first act in America is to break the very laws that you helped create, thereby defying what you do. That is why they are called “illegal.” I hope the ministry also points this out to their people. And Nancy, I hope that you never criticize the Christian Coalition or any other group that advocates the restoration of Christian values in our schools such as prayers, or symbols, or express themselves with signs in California that express a conservative viewpoint, such as advocating against gay marriage or abortion. Should you do so, be prepared to be called a first class hypocrite.
So Nancy let us hear what you have to say about the Bible and the Christian ministry in politics so that we can better understand your new position of strong Christian advocacy.
