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
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.
I thought that they did; "undocumented border agent", wasn't it?
LOL! Has a ring to it, I think!
Transferring our territory to a foreign government, even temporarily, could have unintended consequences. A much better solution, in my view, would simply be to legislate that alien parents who have children who are U.S. citizens are not themselves entitled to any special treatment on that account. They can receive no extra benefits not available to other aliens, and if they're here illegally, they can still be deported, though they'll still have the legal right to take their child with them.
Republicans are really missing the boat on this one. In the last election the Republicans had the largest percentage of the Mexican vote they ever captured. What the political gurus in the GOP do not realize is that those votes they received represent the Mexicans that feel the same way about protecting our border. They want the border closed. These are the same Mexicans that by a vast majority do not want bilingual education in our schools. They have bought into the American Dream and want to protect it.
As you mentioned the Bracero Program worked. We need to bring it back. We also need to crack down on the employeers of illegal aliens. To do this we need a social security card that can not be forged and has your picture and fingerprint on it. With our new technology we can do this. Heavy fines must be levied on the emplyeer that hires illegals. The illegals that are in this country should have the opprotunity to join the bracero program, and work in this country legally. If they have families in this country that are illegal the family must go home but the worker will be allowed to stay. Any illegal that has committed a crime will be repatriated to his country and if he enters this country again will face an automatic jail sentence. We must have a massive education program that will reach the Mexican population in Mexico that if they join the bracero program they are welcome to work in this country. This would put political pressure within Mexico to cooperate with the United States in sealing the border from the Mexican side also.
A worker that has been in this country for seven years should then be given the opprotunity to apply for citizenship and become part of the American Dream.
PS
I know of which I speak. I am a guero (white boy)
I was raised on the border and my wife is from across the river. We speak English and Spanish in our home, mostly English. She came here legally and has post graduate degrees from Universties here in Texas. I wish my English was as good as hers. She is part of the American Dream and votes Republican most the time. I am working on that ;).
You're only half right. Under current law (and I won't debate with you whether that's constitutionally required), children of illegal aliens are citizens, but it is no longer true that these "anchor babies" give preference to their parents in seeking legal status. That was the law from 1965 to 1995, but under an amendment to the statute, citizens under 18 cannot sponsor relatives for family unification. So the illegal parents can give the child up for adoption, or they can take the child with them when they are deported (in which case the kid can come back to the U.S. at age 18).
All costs are passed to the consumer. But in this case, the price of the foreign goods - auto parts included would rise, making those goods more expensive to purchase. Simple economics - as the price increases demand will decrease, and if the price differential is enough, American competition will step in charging less. Less money leaving the US, more Americans employed etc.
Disclaimer: I do not support 'protectionist' tariffs, imposts, duties or other fees.
You ever thought about running for office?
You have now had a week to respond to my reply. Admit it: you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, recent bogus Supreme Court decisions built upon a precedent arising a packed Roosevelt court, notwithstanding.
Read the text of the amendment. I stand by my assertion. A judge's interpretation of the act created the anchor baby ruling, and it's still not found in the text of the amendment.
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.