Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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."

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his 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.

Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. The record of law is full of references to jurisdiction that had nothing to do with physical location. Take for example title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where is states:

[Any] alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States...

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe. Under the common myth of the meaning -- simply being within the limits of a State automatically places an alien under US jurisdiction for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. It does not as Bingham and Howard plainly makes clear as well as laws regarding the subject at the time also make clear.

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[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.

[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.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the Civil Rights bill of 1870. Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction "requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.

Shapka Broham: I am sorry that you are obsessed by the effort to exclude these Latino folks from our country but that is your problem and not mine. People like you may well succeed in having a Berlin Wall built on our southern border to exclude Hispanics. You would probably prefer that Vincente Fox build a wall to keep Mexicans in which would be more analogous to the soviet Berlin Wall. He won't.

The flood of immigration from the south is like flood waters. Bottle it up at one point and it will break through at others. Build a border-wide barrier (at what ridiculous expense???) and the immigrants will burrow under it or climb over it. Emasculate the United States by placing our entire military on our southern border and (never minding the international effects of being unable to wage wars with our nation's and our civilization's ACTUAL ENEMIES as necessary and demoralizing the troops by turning them onto the task of attacking men, women and children who simply want to live better lives).

Though you obviously fail to recognize the facts, simply banging your rattle on the wall screaming: What part of illegal does that Elk not understand? will not solve your perceived problem. Like a heroin needle, it may temporarily relieve your pain as bad habits tend to do but the immigration will continue and the political lines will be drawn so that Hispanics will regard Republicans and conservatives as my Irish ancestors viewed them a century ago. By the time that the Hispanics recover from the organized anti-Hispanic effort of the border manics, we will all be equally enslaved by our own government.

You have no practical or legal plan to accomplish your goals. The personal correspondence of long-dead legislators written a decade after the passage of the 14th Amendment will avail you nothing in constitutional interpretation when there is NO AMBIGUITY in the constitutional language.

You don't want to hear that and so you will refuse to hear it. You will respond with another flurry or blizzard of insults and refuse to engage on the issues. You certainly have no obligation to engage in rational debate. You can believe as you please. You can rage as you please. You can primal scream as you please but the law is still the law at least on this matter of the immigration.

I don't have to engage in irrational debates. I do not have to pretend that you are advancing concepts that are even debatable.

For whatever it may be worth, you and your allies will probably win temporary political victories this year in the GOP not because you are right but because the situation of retaining a GOP House and Senate is becoming perilous for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the extreme pain of the border obsessives over not getting their way on demand as yet. Some of us are open to practical argument but have seen none. I have often asked for a practical road map to get from where we are to where you would like us to be, consistent with law. It is telling that, for the most part, the only response is invective.

If you guys win, America faces an absolutely socialist (or worse) future because you will have added the Hispanic vote to the African American vote and the feminazi vote and the AFL-CIO vote (nowadays) and the envirowhacko vote and the anti-God vote and the Dr. Kevorkian-lover vote and the just bone ignorant vote as solid blocks against American freedoms. Kiss your guns goodbye. Kiss your paycheck goodbye. Kiss your home goodbye. Kiss a LOT MORE OF YOUR JOBS goodbye. Look forward to "gay marriage" America, childbirth (limited to liberals only) by license only in America; mandatory public skeweled municipal brainwashing centers America; "Hillary deciding whether you ideologically qualify for health care" America, etc.

Needless to say, you will disagree with the preceding paragraph but you are wrong. No sense suggesting that you resist the incessant compulsion to "feel good" by telling them Mexicans what fer in the ugliest traditions of xenophobia. You don't like to recognize or realize that life is not as you wish it to be and that you cannot control that. You do not want to admit political impotence to change reality as you want it changed.

It is a big IF as to whether the border mania strategy will postpone Demonratic control of Congress for a couple of weakened years, but Americans are smart enough to figure it out over the ensuing two years. So are Mexicans. When the Latinos are firmly welded at the hip to the Demonrats and America is lost, I hope you will be honest enough to admit that you were tragically wrong as we share the Gulag that resulted from applied ignorance on this issue impersonating American conservatism.

Finally, the MSM has spent that much time and ink on the border issues to divide conservatives who believe in freedom from those who believe in social calcification and status quo. It works. AND, I described the immigration loopiness as unimportant COMPARED to the American Holocaust which has slaughtered nearly 50 million innocent unborn babies under the rubric of SCOTUS and Roe vs. Wade. Border mania is quite important since it will fatally shatter the conservative movement that was. Border mania is NOT as important as is the evil that sliced, diced and hamburgerized millions of innocent babies.

If our movement must be splintered and destroyed, let it be for a noble cause such as protection of innocent human life and not for such embarassing behavior as cultural xenophobia. In twenty years, my movement will be alive (if underground) and yours (to the extent that it depends on border mania) will not.

Consider yourself dubbed.

Shapka Broham: I think that I posted that Mexican President Vincente Fox would not accommodate your desire for a Berlin Wall along our southern border to keep his people in Mexico, that any wall would be built by us to keep them out. Perhaps we can call it the Great Wall of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. It could be a tourist attraction. We could have dramatic readings by Mexicans posing as Mexican presidents on the Mexican side, calling out: "Mr./Ms. (fill in the name of whoever is president--- Bush or Hillary or whomever [certainly not Tancredo]), TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" Well, Reagan was probably no border obsessive so, who cares about the obvious implications? By darn, gun down the mamacitas: full speed ahead!!!!!!

Your reading comprehension rivals your constitutional insight.

Whatever you may think of Vincente Fox, neither he nor his party gunned down Catholic priests for the crime of saying Mass. Fox's ancestors attended those Masses.

Who is Manuel Obrador Lopez???? Would he be the candidate of the PRI known as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (the communist drug thugs) who have run Mexico since the 1920s except for Fox's tenure????? The ones who martyred Fr. Miguel Pro, SJ, by firing squad (simply for saying Mass) in 1927? And many Cristeros until FDR put a stop to their campaign of murdering Catholics in 1939, when the Knights of Columbus offered that alternative or their delivery of the Catholic vote to the GOP in 1940 on the Third Term issue when the PRI threatened to execute Fr. Pro's brother who was also a priest?????

If you were Mxican and Lopez were the PRI candidate and he was elected would you move your family to El Norte or would you say: No, we would not want to break US laws just to become Americans and have an income and not be rousted from our beds at 3 AM. If you would stay and make your family stay, then your priorities would be disordered.

You continue not to engage on the issues, of course, in additon to misreading what I posted.

If Fox is as bad as you say, maybe we should give him citizenship, move the Mexicans to Taxachusetts and run him against Ted the Driver or Lurch.

Of course, Fox helps us by sending us socially conservative Mexicans. You weren't expecting the Junior League or the Mayflower Society to put an end to abortion, were you?

Your reading comprehension rivals your constitutional insight.

This coming from the genius that believes the 14th Amendment was ratified in order for Mexican nationals to exploit generous 20th century social welfare programs.

Enlighten me, Joseph Story.

If Fox is as bad as you say, maybe we should give him citizenship, move the Mexicans to Taxachusetts and run him against Ted the Driver or Lurch.

No, we should invite President Bush-who's already a lame duck-to be the next nominee of your favorite political party.

He couldn't do any worse than Fox's chosen successor, and has probably done more for Mexicans than laughable crony Santiago Creel.

It would be a perfect fit.

BTW, I don't really give a rat's ass who governs that dysfunctional, third world nation.

The petty, internecine divisions between the PRD, PAN, PRI, Convergencia, PT, PVE and every other pathetic political party in that country couldn't concern me less.

The only important thing-from my perspective-is that they are unanimous about one aspect of foreign policy, i.e. sucking their neighbor to the North bone dry.

First of all, I am not a member of the open borders lobby. Elk can vouch for that. I believe in LEGAL immigration, and enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants. That does not mean I favor a wall along the border. In likewise I am not a big fan of the federal war on drugs, but I am also not a propononent of legalization. I do not favor fathers shirking court imposed financial responsibility for their children, but I also am against some of the legislation that treats anyone who wants a driver's license or a job like a suspected dead beat dad.

Just saying my position is intellectually bankrupt is unimpressive, especially when you made it clear that you did not know what my position was. I had not stated it.

From a practical standpoint, your approach (combined with a recent SCOTUS decision regarding providing your name to the police with no probable cause) is moving us towards a country where you have to prove that you are here legally, rather than it being assumed unless proved otherwise. I am not in a free country if I have to carry papers around that can be demanded at any time. It makes my position little different than a freed negro slave in the 1850's. Moreover, if citizenship can be restricted to one group (those born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil), little stops more exceptions being carved out in order to broaden the category of people who are not worthy of citizenship. Eventually it might come down to effectively political positions, or not being sensitive to the right special interest groups. It sure didn't take long for Kelo to give the green light to bull-doze residences in favor of yacht clubs.

The framers of the 14th Amendment (acting less than 20 years after the peak of the Know-Nothing Party, the orghanization closest to your position at that time)didn't countenance much in the way of illegal immigration control. In a sense, illegal immigration is what wrested Texas away from Mexico in the first place! (Phony vows taken by U.S. immigrants into the Texas territory.)

so your idiotic analogy to Nazi Germany holds no water.

Have you ever heard the term, "strawman"? That is when you attack a position that was not taken by your opponent. My position has NOTHING to do with Nazi Germany. The only historical allusions I made were to the Texas territory and the Know-Nothing Party of the mid-19th century. I made NO allusions to Nazis.

Someone who has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or those disgusting Matricula Consular ID cards, is not here legally.

That will be news to my wife, who is a Canadian citizen, and here quite legally. In our first year of marriage, she had an ITIN in order for me to claim her on my tax return. (By the way, she is the mother of my children, and is a home maker, so she is not taking any jobs from American workers.) It took almost five years to get the permanent Green Card. She is not seeking American citizenship, she just wants to live with her husband and children in peace.

It's always easier to search out scab labor than to actually abide by the standards and practices of a legitimate company.
While hiring an illegal is not hiring a scab (unless there's a strike going on, I AGREE that companies that knowingly and purposefully do this are wrong. I just don't think the answer is more federal government tracking of employees (e.g. the national employment database). I am of the mind that there is no such thing as "jobs that Americans aren't willing to do." People who say that (including the president) really mean "jobs that Americans are not willing to do at the wages the employers feel like paying". (E.g. walk up to a guy on the street: "Will you pick grapes for $2.25/hour?" "Heck, no!" "How about for $100/hour?" "Heck yeah!" Somewhere in between is the real wage, normally we should leave it to those two to work it out.) I also don't see why drivers' licenses can be turned into a safety issue. If they have a valid driver's license from whereever they are from, it is legal here under the U.N. Treaty of 1948.

I bring this up because this topic is not just an either/or. One can be concerned about illegal immigration without wanting to wall off the country or create new laws that would have unintended uses in the hands of liberal judges and politicians (e.g. look what RICO got twisted into against pro-lifers).

It shouldn't take five years for a legal immigrant to be processed. Incentives could be used to promote legal immigration (four year enlistment in the U.S. military, and you get to the front of the line, for instance; preference to people who agree to reside in places that are not overbooked [e.g. California, Arizona, Texas, NY]).

While I am not for open borders in this era, I do get perturbed at people who want to restrict both legal and illegal immigration.

You have misrepresnted my position, claimed I made a Nazi comparison when I didn't, and confused an understanding of the 14th Amendment that is different from what you wished it stated with "supporting the open borders people."

There is no job that Americans are not willing to do.

This is a convenient excuse used by people who are unwilling-or incapable-of facing reality, which is that the reason these are such low-paid occupations is because we have a glut of illegal labor.

One of the reasons that our agricultural industry is so primitive-in contrast to Australia, which decided to impose limitations on "guest workers" during the 1970s-is because huge agri-businesses have no incentive for innovation-making some of these supposedly unpalatable jobs redundant-when they can just import low-paid scabs-and yes, that is an accurate term to describe what these people are, at least in relation to their employment-from Guanajuato to perform exact same manual labor that their great-grandparents did.

And yes, our massive, untrammeled LEGAL immigration is inextricably linked to the 8-9 million-and that's a conservative estimate, mind you-illegal aliens roaming around this country.

The only people who refuse to see that correlation are the people who think that getting an extra two dollars off on grapes is more important than preserving the internal cohesion of this society.

And one of the reasons that legal immigrants have to wait so long to be naturalized is because of the border-jumpers you OBL's have decided to exalt.

Imagine my surprse at learning that sittnick is a member of "the open borders lobby." I certainly can vouch for the fact that he is not. The assumption seems to be that if I ping sittnick or ninenot and if each is not shapka broham, each must be my clone. Sittnick, I and ninenot know better than that.

Another obvious problem for shapka broham in addition to reading comprehension, lack of constitutional knowledge and a cavalier attitude towards the rights of others, is the rather typical assumption, while claiming conservatism, that it is perfectly OK to have a welfare state to take care of nativist grandmas (whatever could be unconservative about that, right Shapka???) so long as we can exclude others from it in spite of the plain language of the 14th Amendment as to equal protection (not just for "citizens" but for all "persons"). The 14th Amendment was improvidently enacted in the aftermath of the late unpleasantness between the Union and the Confederacy but IT WAS ENACTED. Its words, Shapka, ARE WHAT THEY ARE.

The case that you, shapka, have cited was in the era of the claim of "yellow peril" whereby all those Chinese railroad laborers were just obviously going to overrun Anglo America unless our brave Congressional fellows who knew a "master race" when they imagined that they belonged to one acted firmly and finally to establish racial quotas in our laws to protect Chatsworth Worthington from undignified, well: competition, by others. You did not think it a coincidence that one of the litigants was Chinese by ancestry, did you?????

One thing that I believe sittnick, ninenot and I can agree on which shapka seems to blithely ignore is the history of the Know Nothing era which would have included as contemporaries such as Congressman Bingham and Senator Howard in which there was an awful lot of concern for freeing the slaves in certain northern precincts which were also very concerned to keep Catholics out of the United States (complete with the Know Nothings' secret passwords and secret handshakes). As a twelve-year old getting off the boat from Cork, my Irish grandmother got to meet a few aged Know Nothings in 1895 (embittered, angry, furious, utterly exclusionary, dreading the Irish peril) and thereafter. She despised them too. Unlike them, she had good reason. Unfortunately, it led to her voting Democrat until 1968 since she never got over the attitudes of the quite Republican Boston Brahmin types, much less the aging Know Nothings (aptly self-named). In such ways did Clan Kennedy rise to power through the votes of the reasonably resentful.

Most of my German ancestors came here in 1848 when the authorities were not yet in the habit of demanding "papers." One German ancestor (a great grandfather) arrived quite illegally (and absolutely penniless) in 1876 as a 16-year old, stowing away on a boat and being caught half way across the Atlantic and required to work his passage. Thirty years later, he died (of outrageously good living) a quite wealthy self-made man and owner of a distillery, hotel and restaurant/tavern covering an entire city block in Louisville, Kentucky. I had a Scottish/Scots Irish grandfather who arrived from Canada and was quite probably arriving without "papers" in 1901. He witnessed McKinley's assassination at the Buffalo railroad station, was a shirt company executive at Cincinnati and later a prison warden in Vermont before dying in the 1918 Spanish Influenza. I had an English grandfather who (sad to say) probably arrived legally just after honorably completing his service in His Majesty's Navy in the Teddy Roosevelt era. My German grandmother was born of her American citizen mother and was not an anchor baby. I wish they had all arrived here without government approval and that America were a more free country to this day but, alas, facts are stubborn. At least some of my ancestors did not need or have "papers." Good for them and good for their counterparts today.

For those inclined to worry about OBL crossing into Arizona or whatever, we also notice that the son of OBL's late treasurer was arrested in Canada this weekend in NW Canada by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (or "Mountain" Police as the Fox news crawler would have it) and he was not posing as a Mexican without map skills. He is expected to be extradited to the custody of US authorities at Boston in response to an extradition warrant. I have heard no calls to wall off the Canadian border.

Well, if we got rid of our exclusionary immigration laws and restored the situation faced by my ancestors and perhaps yours, all of Mexico might come here "legally." OK, I exaggerate, but not by much.

There are two kinds of wrong recognized by our laws or any one else's. The first and universally accepted kind of wrong is known as "malum in se", evil in and of itself for shapka and those who reside in Rio Linda: murder, rape, robbery, and abortion or lavender hoopla in saner times than our own are all "malum in se."

The second kind of "wrong" is not so universally recognized. It is called "malum prohibitum." Except for those overly wedded to a certain interpretation of Romans (not us Catholics), this would include parking in a no parking zone established for no rational reason, smoking in the tavern of a tavern owner who warns his patrons in advance that he allows smoking, saying critical things against the British PM or the queen in British jurisdiction, resisting Chinese immigration beyond a fixed statutory number, selling free market orange juice in the Soviet Union (they actually executed people for such "crimes"), crossing the Mexican-US border to find good work at good wages to support one's desperately poor family in spite of pecksniff exclusionary "laws" that express obliquely nothing more noble than "we don't want their kind in OUR country." That latter attitude is what my Irish grandmother had to deal with 110 years ago and I am not inclined to be amused yet or to get over it yet or to go Brahmin yet, even if she married a working class English immigrant.

Look hard into the people pushing border mania at the top and you will find the usual gang of suspects: ZPG, Planned Barrenhood et al. We do not need ethnic "quality control" and we never did. Human Events, ACU and other conservative publications and groups are being stampeded by the conceded popularity of the border mania. This nativist baloney started at Natonal Review with the arrival of John O'Sullivan and Peter Brimelow, both Brits with pretensions of British=quality. That does not mean that we and they will not pay the price of adopting nativism as part of conservatism. We forget the lessons learned painfully by our ancestors at our peril.

The USA is continually renewed by the influx of "aliens" seeking the dream that accompanies them and their suitcases. That dream has nothing to do with special interest legislation designed to create a supposed ethnic quality and quantity control.

Just because their are Republican crooks galore in Congress does not mean that I want Hillary in the White House or her minions controlling Congress. It is the GOP that will attempt to hang on (quite temporarily) by Mexican bashing. Those within the GOP welcoming Mexicans will recruit them in the long run as the social conservatives that they are and will be. The Constitution Party is not and never will be viable even if the GOP disappears. Mexicans or socialism (and abortion) forever is the basic dichotomy, regardless of political party.

It is wrong to lie. It was not wrong to lie to Nazis to keep them from knowing about the Jews hidden in one's attic. The "law" of SCOTUS says it is not wrong to murder your unborn child but it is verrrrrry wrong. Neither my conscience nor yours ought not to be placed in trust with the US gummint or any other. The rule of law is dead in the US since at least Roe vs. Wade and will not have even a chance of resurrection as long as Roe vs. Wade stands. A partial "rule of law" may well be worse than none at all.

I've got news for you, Corky.

Mexicans do not vote for Republicans.

The editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal, New York Post-sans Scott McConnell-huge agribusiness corporate monstrosities like Archer Daniels-Midland, in addition to the, by and large, utterly worthless Republicans in the United States...

These groupings do not support perpetual, unfettered immigration because they are under the delusion that these people are going to fire off checks to the RNC upon receipt of their first sub-minimum wage pay stub.

In contrast to you, they aren't so dense that they believe millions of Mexicans-who vote for the Democratic Party in numbers upward of sixty percent-are going to become members of the GOP simply because the Democratic Party leadership happens to despise Catholics.

They do so out of venal pecuniary interests.

In fact, everyone who supports open borders-from immigration lawyers, to radical, anti-American groups like MALDEF, La Raza, LULAC, etc., to corporations, to institutions of higher learning-does so for their own personal enrichment, or because doing so advances their own pernicious political agenda.

No one welcomes the dissolution of our borders, the entrance of millions of unskilled, uneducated, potentially criminal aliens-or conversely, the displacement of millions of highly qualified, educated, well-compensated American workers-out of the beneficence of their own heart(s).

The people who actually do believe that our current dysfunctional immigration system is sustainable-or that the few remaining barriers to entry need to be eliminated altogether-are either adamant ideologues who are not susceptible to reason and have no intention of being persuaded that their position is manifestly wrong-such as Tamar Jacoby-or certifiable lunatics, such as yourself.

Furthermore, unlike some other people-who want to be convinced that your puerile fantasy is somehow tethered to reality-I'm not going to be cowed into submission by the seemingly endless repetition of the party line, i.e. O NOES, THE BIG BAD HILLARY MONSTER IS GOING TO GET ME!!! *shudder*

First of all, if HRC does win in 2008 it will be in no small part due to the efforts of terminally stupid individuals such as yourself, who have enabled a party that has refused to adequately address one of the most pivotal issues of our time.

Namely, the invasion of this country by people who have no desire-and certainly no incentive-to become members of American society.

Secondly, I'm not a mindless, GOP-supporting automaton.

My support for that party is conditional, and tethered to how well they perform in certain areas.

And in this respect, they have performed abysmally.

The word "horrendous" would be a charitable description.

What damage exactly is this, in your artful turn of phrase, "anti-Christ" going to do, which hasn't already been accomplished?

Is she going to embrace millions of Mexican nationals that have no claim-legal, ethical or otherwise-to U.S. citizenship, or welcome the PRC-the most brutal, murderous, despotic regime this side of North Korea-into the WTO?

Is she going to empower Pali fascists in Gaza by giving them their very own terror statelet?

OOPS!

I guess she's a little late to the game, since those things have already occurred under a REPUBLICAN administration.

My bad.

I am well aware that Whigs have dominated the discussions or social issues in this country since roughly the end of Truman's regime--and that includes the otherwise useful Bill Buckley, who promotes Whig economic silliness.

But that does not change the 'malum prohibitum' which DOES place ordering on immigration. PJB, who has cranial matter and is NOT a Whig, made the simple proposal that the US should change its immigration laws to decidedly favor children of the West--which would include Mexicans--at the expense of children of the East.

He made that proposal fully understanding that Christianity is the basis of the culture in the US and that preserving the culture is far more important than other considerations.

Frankly, I don't know where GWB is trying to go with his immigration policy, whatever it may be. And yes, Mexican immigrants (by and large) are of the Western variety--and by and large they may see (R)'s values as superior to (D)'s.

But that has yet to play out in real life. Note the fact that the group does NOT vote (R)--and in fact, one of their organizations conducted an illegal demonstration to attempt to secure issuance of Wisconsin Drivers' Licenses to illegals.

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.