Geronimo - Born in America but never a citizen
David Frum continues to astonish. Having mentioned the Inside-the-Beltway unmentionable immigration moratorium solution to the unemployment problem last summer, and comprehensively eviscerated the Gingrich Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration proposal in November, he has now hosted at Frum Forum an incisive discussion of the Birthright citizenship issue by our old friend Howard Foster. It’s Time to Debate Birthright Citizenship January 5th 2012 is a succinct and intelligent discussion of what I like to call the jugular of the Treason Lobby’s effort to dissolve the historic American nation and elect a new people. Fixing it alone would delay the reconquista perhaps two generations.
Let’s start with the relevant text of that post-civil War Amendment…It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…” (emphasis added) (the “Citizenship Clause”). Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI), introduced the Citizenship Clause… He stated: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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… but will include every other class of persons.” Senators proceeded to debate whether Indians living on reservations would be citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbill (R-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, answered that they would not be citizens because of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the Citizenship clause. “That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof… not owing allegiance to anybody else.” I don’t think there is any way to interpret the original intent of the Citizenship Clause as applying to the children of illegal immigrants.
Indians (fatuous to call them Native Americans in this context) were in fact denied the vote until specifically granted the franchise by the Snyder Act in 1924.
Foster then efficiently discusses the degrading of the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Essentially the Supreme Court a generation later changed course and decided to ignore the jurisdiction issue. Geographic location became the only test.
There is no reason why this specimen of judicial legislation should be regarded with any particular reverence. Foster’s conclusion:
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has introduced a bill to repeal “birthright citizenship.”… I think Rep. King and his 80 co-sponsors are correct in doing away with birthright citizenship. The only other country having such a rule outside the third world is Canada. The U.K., France, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and India have repealed birthright citizenship in the last 30 years as immigration has increased. According to the Rasmussen poll of likely voters, 65% favor repeal. Birthright citizenship is a magnet for illegal immigrants. This costs the taxpayers billions of dollars each year…
The Frum Forum comment thread is steaming with hysterical rage. The Left has developed a tremendous sense of entitlement about the demographic transformation of America. Any threat to it produces fury.
But with the Cheap Labor Lobby likely or certain to own the next GOP nominee, the time has come for this non-economic incentive to be offered again to get Patriots to hold their noses and vote. Maybe the very business-like Frum scents this is on the table. It is one part of the Ron Paul 2012 platform which could be adopted. Only those seeking political – as opposed to financial - benefits from immigration really need this crazy situation to continue.
H/T One Old Vet