Double Crossing at the Rio Grande II

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

"All illegal MALES should be sent to a “work camp” in the national forests."

It seems to me that we have two problems -- open borders, and a lot of people who take advantage of them. Maybe we can solve both at the same time?!?

Here is Mack the Knife's Plan for Border Security.

Rather than send illegals to national forests ... Congress can pass a law declaring illegal border crossing to be a Federal Misdemeanor, with a mandatory sentencing guideline of some number of months in a border work camp where they would be put to work building a better fence. This would apply to both Men AND women. Some of the women can take care of the kids, others do the same kinds of work that our female soldiers do. Pattern the food, tents, and work rules after what our soldiers experience in the field. That way we cannot in any way be accused of discrimination or inhumane treatment.

Sentencing guidelines: For example:
---First offence - 3 months;
---second offense, 6 months, etc.
---And if they are caught inside the US, the penalty is 3 months plus one month for every month they have lived here undetected up12 months minus a day (remember, it is a misdemeanor, so the penalty should not go more than one year).

Put up a tent city (like the Arizona sheriff did) and give them all pink uniforms and pink underwear, and have them start building a fence nearby. When the fence is complete within walking distance, move the tent city, and build more fence.

Have a judge in residence to hear appeals immediately -- they can keep on working on the fence while their appeal is being heard. Their only defense is a proper document - birth certificate, or visa.

If they don't want to work, put them into the nearby jail camp, where they spend twice as long.

When their sentence is over ... give them some food and water and bus fare and push them back over the border. But keep their fingerprints.

It seems like a self correcting approach. The more illegals that are caught, the faster the fence is built. If you run out of illegals crossing the border, round up a few inside the country. Offer a bounty of $100 for someone to turn one in.

And ... we start by notifying current illegals that they have 1 month before we start rounding them up and putting them into the border camps. This handles the current illegal problem -- it would be physically impossible to capture and deport 10 million illegals on the same day ... but ... find a couple of hundred, put them in the border camp for a couple of months, let the news do a story on it ... and many illegals might decide it was time to leave on their own before they were caught and had to spend a year building the fence.

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.

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.