NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.
A Pennsylvania Reader writes:
In an October 3, 2006 article on LewRockwell.com ("Rethinking Birthright Citizenship"), Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) implies that a baby born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens of another country is a U.S. citizen because the 14th Amendment says so. Representative Paul then argues that such birthright citizenship is unwise and legislation to amend the Constitution is needed to correct this situation.
An examination of the wording of the 14th Amendment and of the statements of legislators who passed the amendment shows clearly that such a baby is explicitly NOT granted U.S. citizenship. The sooner the President informs all "anchor babies" born since ratification of the Amendment in 1868, their relatives and descendents that, due to an egregious lack of executive and congressional oversight, federal government agencies mistakenly (and illegally) granted them U.S. citizenship, the sooner the Supreme Court can resolve the inevitable lawsuit. Will Republicans force the issue in this (or any) election cycle?
VDARE.COM NOTE: See Weigh Anchor! Enforce the Citizenship Clause, for the full story on the 14th Amendment. Our story quotes Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who said, before passing the 14th Amendment, that
It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. … I have supposed … that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.