The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 9-16-2015

________________________________________
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 9-16-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Anchor Baby Myth
The Constitution v Birthright Citizenship

By Mark Alexander

Sep. 16, 2015

“Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules.” —Thomas Jefferson (1801)

There is a raging political debate about immigration in the U.S., or more specifically about the consequences of illegal immigration. Solutions have been hotly contested and evaded for decades.

In the current election cycle, Donald Trump1 has reignited that debate. Trump rightly states, “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.” His mantra on the topic is, “They’ve got to go!”

Regardless of your opinion of Trump’s populist antics, making immigration a centerpiece of his presidential rhetoric has forced both Republicans and Democrats to clarify their positions on this issue — and not a minute too soon!

The current debate centers on whether or not to “repeal” birthright citizenship. But framing this argument with the word “repeal,” whether by legislation or constitutional amendment, implies that there is something in our Constitution or subsequent legislation that already affirms a right to birthright citizenship. No such provision exists, except as wholly misinterpreted by courts and propagated by politicians pandering for mostly Hispanic and Latino votes.

Note that in Jefferson’s words regarding immigration he specifies “our laws acknowledge … your right to join us” and the requirement that immigrants conform “to our established rules.”

But, as usual, “laws” and “rules” are now wholly ignored in favor of political expedience.

What law was Jefferson referencing? Before addressing the current immigration fiasco, let’s revisit some fundamental constitutional Rule of Law2 in regard to immigration.

Our Constitution references immigration only in Section 1 of Article Two, noting, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” It was understood that “natural born” meant one born on U.S. soil prior to the enactment of our Constitution.

A year after our unanimously ratified Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, the term “natural born citizen” was defined in the first immigration legislation passed by Congress — the Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790.

Yes, defining legal immigration standards dates back to the earliest days of our Republic.

The 1790 Act stipulated immigrants had to be legal residents in the U.S. for two years prior to applying for citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1795 superseded the Act of 1790 and required five years' residence, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 increased that to 14 years' residence.

That law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” In other words, if born on foreign soil, you also were extended rights of citizenship if your father was an established American citizen.

Fast-forward to the end of the War Between the States. Though slaves were in the U.S. “legally,” and thus “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they had no post-war assurance of any rights as citizens, much less equal rights.

Thus, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 affirmed citizenship for former slaves. But out of concern that some future legislature would revoke those rights, members of the Senate proposed the 14th Amendment, and submitted it for ratification by the States.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment codified the full citizenship rights of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, stipulating, “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.”

In a previous essay entitled Birthright Citizenship3, I provided irrefutable evidence, in the very words of the 14th Amendment’s authors, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clearly and plainly referred to those who were legal citizens. It did not and never has implied any legal standing for the children of illegal immigrants.

After World War II, there was a flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border. In 1954, Dwight Eisenhower launched “Operation Wetback4,” and millions of those illegal aliens were rounded up and returned back to Mexico. Those deportations went on for almost a decade, until illegal immigration was reduced to a mere trickle.

But for the last three decades, illegal immigration has surged largely unabated.

There are now an estimated 11.3 million illegals in our country — notably, about 40% of whom arrived with legal visas but never left when their visas expired. More than eight million illegal immigrants hold jobs while more than nine million Americans are unemployed.

That notwithstanding, Barack Obama, in yet another violation of his Article II, Section 1, oath “to support and defend5” our Constitution, has undermined enforcement of immigration laws6 in order to win the political support of ethnic groups associated with those who would otherwise be deported.

I have argued, however, that Obama’s amnesty proposals7 are mostly “smoke and mirrors8,” because a larger and more critical Democrat constituency is composed of unionized workers and low-income Americans9. The Left baits them with class warfare rhetoric10 centered on the issue of “living wages.” Illegal immigrants drive down “living wages.”

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says that, to win, the next Democrat presidential candidate must “run on a raising-wages agenda.” Allowing 10 million immigrants to compete for low-wage jobs is certainly not consistent with that agenda.

For evidence of Obama’s faux agenda, recall that in 2008 then president-elect Obama declared, “I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.” In 2009 and 2010, Obama’s Democratic Party11 controlled both the House and Senate, but his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill for him to sign.

Of course, a lot of the Republican promises about immigration have also been nothing more than smoke.