Posted on 04/21/2005 6:59:39 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I shouldn’t repeat myself, but every rule has exceptions. The Minutemen’s efforts on the US-Mexican border have proved the accuracy of my column on 20 November, 2003. “Double Crossing at the Rio Grande” can be found here
The gist was that the cure for the alien tide from Mexico is to change the incentives so that Mexico will control its own side of the border with its own troops. Here’s how:
Total the cost to local, state and federal governments for finding, rounding up, jailing and expelling Mexican illegals. Divide that cost by the total number of truck crossings of the Mexican border. Then charge that amount as a security fee on every truck that crosses, regardless of the truck’s ownership or cargo.
My article dealt with ways to handle the howls of protest which would arise from the World Trade Association and others who believe in open borders for the US. It points out that Mexico knows how to use its federales to close its border whenever it chooses.
Mexico currently uses its troops to close its southern border with Guatemala, to prevent aliens even poorer than Mexicans from getting in. More importantly, the Mexican response to the efforts of the Minutemen also proves the point.
While the Minutemen have been in place, the federales have been stationed on the border, warning Mexicans not to try to cross the 23-mile section now patrolled by American volunteers. In short, Mexico has done exactly what I argued it should be forced to do by appropriate changes in American policies.
Those who bother to read their history know the border can be closed by Mexico. It did so for two decades during the Bracero Program, which lasted from World War II until the mid-60s. Under that, the US and Mexico agreed on the precise number of Mexicans who would come here to work, with a requirement that they would return after their work. Mexico also made, and kept, a commitment to prevent any significant illegal entries.
Today, of course, Mexico’s incentives are reversed. Remittance of money by Mexicans (legal and illegal) to family at home is now the largest single source of earnings in their economy. As I said previously, reversing the economic incentives will reverse Mexico’s policies. And closing the border with Mexican troops will save a huge financial burden on American taxpayers, and personal burden on American soldiers.
A few other points deserve discussion. President Bush has falsely applied the word “vigilantes” to the Minutemen. The President’s use of this word gave the American press license to slander these American citizen-volunteers likewise. Again, anyone who knows their history knows this word does not apply.
Vigilantes in the American West, and in many places across the nation during times of civil law breakdown in the American Revolution and the Civil War, all followed the same pattern. They established Committees of Vigilance which assumed the powers of “government” in their territories, dispensed “justice,” and sometimes carried out executions after “trials” with few or no legal niceties. The Minutemen are doing NONE of these things.
They are merely watchers and reporters. Because most aliens come in on foot, there is an hour or more in which the watchers could spot them, call the Border Patrol, and have officers come to the exact place where the illegals are. In short, they make the Border Patrol extremely effective, rather than have a pathetically small number of agents drive thousands of miles, looking for aliens – who have the common sense to run and hide whenever they see headlights at night.
While we’re solving the problems of closing the borders, we should deal with the problem of “anchor babies.” Alien women close to giving birth are risking their lives and their children by trying to sneak into the US to give birth here. The baby is then an American citizen, which gives preference to the parents seeking legal status.
Congress could put a stop to this by simple legislation. By law it could define the place where an alien mother gives birth to a baby inside the US as foreign territory of the mother’s nationality, at the time of birth. Can this be done?
Consider that all embassies in the US are defined as territory of that nation, not American. Consider that there are “foreign trade zones” many places in the US, defined as “not American territory” under import and tax laws. Congress has this power; the question is only whether it has the brains to use it.
Remember, a nation that cannot control its borders also cannot control its destiny. It’s as simple as that.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
John / Billybob
many people are disgusted with Bush and the repubs for essentially ignoring this INVASION. yes, INVASION. what else can you call it ? they better wake up
Anyone want to start a pool on how many posts will pass before racism and Arizona politico's are brought into this thread?
I say by #10.
Tax them for everyone we catch. Good idea!
The "anchor baby" thing should be ceased immediately. It should be considered breaking of ANOTHER immigration law - that should then cause the baby to be considered a citizen of its mothers country.
The Nixon Administration started searching everyone and everything comming in legally as part of the 'War on Drugs' they said.
They knew it would have no effect on drug smuggling, but they also knew that the resulting slowdown of legal crossings, lines were hours long, would create economic chaos in Mexico and force them to cooperate in spraying the drug fields in the interior.
If we were to get strict at the legal crossing points in searching for illegals and drugs, the ecoonomic chaos would force Mexico to act and patrol their own borders within days, in return for our reopening the legal crossings.
So9
All illegal MALES should be sent to a “work camp” in the national forests.
They could be used to clear out the brush in the REMOTE forests where there are no towns near by. They should live in tents and work for six months each time they are caught crossing the border illegally.
You should probably not phrase it this way, given that the 14th Amendment specifically forbade anchor babies and was then re-interpreted by activist courts. Such a Constitutional limitation is not subject to change by the Congress either because the Supreme Law of the Land holds that children of foreign subjects are not citizens.
ping yer list?
Thanks Billybob, got your email with this same info on it today, I'm forwarding it to everyone I know, hope that's ok.
President Bush has falsely applied the word "vigilantes" to the Minutemen. The President's use of this word gave the American press license to slander these American citizen-volunteers likewise. Again, anyone who knows their history knows this word does not apply.
Maybe it's the name ... "Minutemen" implies guns and shooting, a la Lexington and Concord, not just standing about with cell phones.
Would not fly, the howls of the left would be heard on the moon.
Slavery,
I'm all for it, just as I am for putting prisoners to work on cleaning roads etc.
I'm concerned that our government is simply not interested in any such thing.
The move towards regional integration seems to be pushing this lack of concern for our border security, and to hell with the citizens of America.
After all, why waste time money and resources protecting something you plan to dismantle?
Don't forget that our own EEOC won't allow an employer to fire a worker with a phony SSAN..this keeps a lot of illegals here. What a pain in the butt.
Racism is relative, as in the mind of the beholder. I don't believe we would feel any different about this invasion if it were by the same caliber, Canadians of European ancestry.
Another elegant and factual article Billybob. Thanks for posting it.
In my opinion, those who choose to call the Minutemen, Vigilantes, do so to demonize and discredit them-period.
Interesting article...thanks for sharing it.
You may find this speech, "Eight Steps to Destroy America", by Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado, interesting. It can be found at:
http://www.rense.com/general62/destroy.htm
I would be interested in your opinion of the speech since I have read some unflattering articles about Lamm.
I suspect you're right, since "vigilante" has a totally negative connotation, in spite of it's having sometimes been a pretty good idea. However, to me, the historical meaning of "Minutemen" (not to mention the Minuteman missile :-) is clearly suggestive of violence. I think that people engaged in standing around in the way and phoning the cops should have chosen a different term.
The idea of a security fee sounds good to me. However, usually all fees are passed on to the consumer. How can you guarantee that these fees would not be passed to the consumer? I can understand how our farmers could compete with produce but that is about it. Auto parts, etc. would just increase in price.
I like the security tax on trucks entering the country. That would get Fox's attention rather quick.
As far as Homeland Security is concerned If you cannot keep out illigals then you cannot keep out terrorists. As has been sated on other threads, if a terrorists act causes the deaths of hundreds of Americans whoever is in office can start looking for other employment or a good lawyer.
The main thing that really ticked me off about the Bush administration is the $1 billion to the hospitals for illegal aliens in the Medicare Bill in the middle of the night. Bush showed his true colors then and hasn't changed since then.
"They should live in tents and work for six months each time they are caught crossing the border illegally."
Why, so they can escape from there also?
I see your point and have to agree. I suspect though, that even if they had chosen a name like, "Gentle greeters of our visiting neighbors", they would still have been demonized. Remember what they did to the terms, Compassionate Conservatism, No child left behind, Contract with America, etc?
I think you're right!
Right. Simply recognize that minors have the same legal status as their parents, regardless of their birthplace. Are the baby's parents US citizens? Then the baby is a US citizen. Are the baby's parents legal immigrants (legal residents)? Then the baby is a legal immigrant (resident). Are the baby's parents here illegally? Then so is the minor in question.
That is consistent with the way legal status is handled for the people that are here legally -- citizens and residents. The way it is done now, when a family immigrates to the US legally, they are legal residents. When Dad and Mom pass their citizenship tests and become an American citizen, any children that came with them that are still minors automatically become citizens, too. Any of their children that immigrated with them that have reached the age of 18 in the meantime have to pass the citizenship tests on their own. Confering the same legal status on minors -- born here or not -- that is on their parents makes all the sense in the world to me, whether they are here legally or illegally.
It is also a problem that the white-supremacists/neo-nazis have attempted to jump onto the Minuteman bandwagon, which makes the average law-abiding citizens nervous. Anyone running a campaign has to recognize and actively address the "guilty by association" issues that inevitably emerge.
Good point.
That's absolutely brilliant, John!
I'd been pondering how to deal with the anchor baby situation without trampling on the parchment, so to speak.
Tell Jerry that I said he'd better buy you an extra beer next time you're in the heartland.
"All illegal MALES should be sent to a “work camp” in the national forests."
No.
No.
No.
Racism is NOT relative.
It is merely used improperly because people have forgotten the distinctions that exist between racism, bigotry, prejudice, and "life ain't fair".
Maybe so.
It might be relative for Klansmen who miscegenate.
: ^ )
I think so too, but Vicente's buddy GWB wouldn't think so.
I think it's becoming clear to some of the more level-headed pols in Washington that we, the American taxpayers, aren't going to foot the bills for Mexico any longer, and that we're not going to vote for those who think we should.
Great article, CBB! Thank you for posting it.
The feds could 'learn' from Sheriff Joe Apio, Maricopa County Arizona.
He's been running a successful "Tent Jail" for citizens for years.......complete with pink underwear & baloney sandwiches.
Many of us have suggested these fed 'tent jails' along the borders, let the criminal invaders, build a fence & pick up some of the tons of trash left by other invaders.
Sadly, the feds continue to believe their "catch & release" system really works.
BUMP.....good column !!
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005
We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.
We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean anyone born in the United States is automatically an American citizen? Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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 ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:
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...
Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration of taking the American Citizenship Oath. 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.[7]
What does it all mean?
In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American jurisdiction. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.
In that case buy *him* one for me as well and kindly convey my best wishes.
True, but the history of vigilantism - shall we say, "justice" without law - in the United States is more negative than positive.
"Vigilance" is not the same as "vigilantism."
There's nothing in the 14th amendment forbidding anchor babies.
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
On the other hand, Section 3 implies that John Kerry is holding office illegally. The Carter era amnesty by pardon, should not have applied to Kerry, as he had taken an oath as an officer of the US. Congressional legislation requiring 2/3rds approval level for officers of the United States, is required by this amendment section.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
It is you YOU that is in need of education.
As written, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects.
The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Here is a second source:
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of implementing provisions of the Amendment back to Congress. Because the Constitution is a limiting document they MAY NOT grant citizenship to illegals, nor the equivalent.
It's nice to muse that persistent posting of that case reference may have got someone to do the research.
Nice column, especially regarding the abuse of the 14th Amendment, which can be legislatively fixed if Congress ever decides they'd like to do it. The least they can do is try and let the Supreme Court rule on it once and for all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.