Thursday, June 08, 2006

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Amendment XIV, 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.
Some time back, Cubed left the following comment at Protect and Defend:
"...[A]bsolutely no changes to the Constitution need to be made.

"I think we need to educate our legislators; they are obviously in great need of a lesson or two in the Constitution.

"[T]he 14th Amendment was never intended to constitute a claim to citizenship just because a person was born here.

"It's a little long, but worthwhile, to see what some of the Big Guns had to say about the intent of the 14th Amendment around the time it was written:

"In 1866, it was recognized that the legal status of recently freed black slaves was in limbo, so the 14th Amendment was written in order to clarify it.

"Senator Jacob Howard wrote: '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, or 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.'

"Thus, the original intent was specifically limited to freedmen, and specifically excluded 'foreigners' and 'aliens.'

"The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868; it was NOT designed to enable illegal aliens who were breaking U.S. law to be given all manner of privileges at taxpayer expense, or to 'go to the head of the line' for citizenship.

"If our legislators had studied harder in school, they might know that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, not the U.S., as is her baby born on U.S. soil.

"A bit of stickiness about the whole "born-in-the-USA-therefore-a-citizen" issue came up again a little over 100 years ago, when the decision about whether American Indians, whose reservations had been granted the status of independent nations, were citizens of the United States.

"The Supreme Court held to the original, narrow intent of the 14th Amendment, and said they were not U.S. citizens; the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded them as 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.'

"This presented a number of difficulties, so Congress decided to pass a special act, the 'Citizens Act of 1924,' which granted American Indians full citizenship. The act said: 'The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: 1) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; 2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.'

"The provision 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes aboriginal tribes not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. - hence, it excludes members of aboriginal peoples of foreign jurisdictions like Mexico and other Central and South American countries.

"All of us who believe the mechanism exists already in the Constitution to exclude the children of illegals from automatic citizenship are right, and we need to let our woefully ignorant legislators know this."
So, where does the above leave anchor babies and their parents?


At 6/08/2006 10:44 PM, Blogger Raven said...

This is the correct version of this ammendment. It was not written with today's situation in mind. Maybe it is time to END BR citizenship. It would certainly deter those pregnant parasites from coming to America illegally I think.

At 6/08/2006 11:19 PM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

The issue is gettin more n more complexxxxxxxxxxxxx!..Not sure what the solution would be AOW?..

At 6/08/2006 11:56 PM, Blogger Mike's America said...

Perhaps we can't take citizenship away from those who have been granted it.

But we are under NO obligation to keep up with this free entry nonsense for the future.

Too bad that this is not seriously discussed in any of the congressional debates.

At 6/09/2006 12:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Look, we made this bed, so we have to lie in it now. We can’t take away “birth-right” citizenship to those who already received it."

Why not? We may have "made" this bed, but we sure don't have to sleep in it. Just because half-witted congressmen didn't know better does not mean we have to have this affect our future. Besides, it wouldn't be "taking" away citizenship anyway. You seem to be forgetting that this was in fact ruled on by the supreme court. Just because people thought or were told differently, does not mean they are excused. For example, if you were driving 80 in a 55 zone because someone told you it was okay, and you got pulled over for speeding. The cop could care less who told you it was alright, what you were doing is illegal, there are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts." Your done, you broke the law. It is the same with birthright citizenship. Regardless of whether or not you "knew" the law, you must abide by it. If that means thousands of people are not citizens anymore, so be it. Any self-respecting person should realize, "Hey, I guess I am not really a citizen, Mabye I should get with the program and apply for "re" naturalization." The first time AOW told me about this (I am one of her students), I thought "Hey, do I need to become a citizen "again" (I was born here. I don't need to, because my parents and their parents before them and so on were citizens). The first thing I thought, however, was do I need to become a citizen again? Not, "This is not fair, the government can't just do this." Guess what, they can. What right do I have to question citizenship (hypothetically) if I wasn't even a citizen? Any self-respecting person who found out they may not be an official citizen should realize the importance of following laws. If you can't, get out of my country. I don't want you here if you can't abide by my countries laws.

Now, I realize the difficulty it may be to prove real or "fake" citizenship. The government certainly can't go around and backround check everyone. But, hey, like I said, if you are an honorable person who respects laws, you will take the test to "re"become a citizen. I also, realize that this would mean generations ago, such "citizenships" would be invalid. There has to be some level of amnesty. It would be impossible to check all the way back, for the resuts would leave few real citizens today. I think we need to focus more on getting it right now, and those who realize they aren't citizens should come forward and be "re" naturalized.

As to the "seperation" of families: Hmmm, I hate to say this, but, hey, mabye those families should have thought of this before coming to America and having kids. I am not a supporter of family seperation, either, but, when you break the law, there are consequences. Also, what do you even mean by parents seperated from children. How will they be seperated? Aren't they all together now? If the child is illegal, than that means the parent is too. Remember the little part in the Supreme Court ruling about non-citizenship if parents are not citizens. You know, "proper jurisdiction." If the kids are illegal, the parents are illegal (Works the other way around, too). There is no seperation. If one is illegal, the other has to be also.

"acceptable to those against illegal immigration who have any heart at all."

Any heart at all? Who has less of a heart, those who come into someone else's country, demand rights they don't deserve, milk the system, spread diseases, etc... or the people (the backbone of America) who are trying to support themselves, and oh, yeah, also support some whiny immigrants demanding rights.

Or if you wan't to take to the citizens who really aren't citizens point of view: The people who realize, "Gee, I am not a citizen," who instead of fixing their problem, ignore it and go pretending they are citizens. Who is heartless, the people who flaunt the law, or the people who are really citizens?

I have no objection to helping people and other Nations. I am not "heartless." I do be believe, however, that it is more important for a nation to solve its own problems and become a unified body before trying to solve world problems. Right now, I think America has so much going against her its not even funny. The world needs help, sure, but so does America.

If we don't follow our original laws and keep amending and giving amnesty, what is going to happen to America?


At 6/09/2006 6:07 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Annex Mexico!

What's the worst that could happen?

A) 107 million new US taxpayers, or

B) Destruction of the Roosevelt Social Security Ponzi scheme?

What's not to like?

(This does not take into account the possibility of the Washington politicians borrowing even more money, but other than that, why not?)

At 6/09/2006 8:42 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...

There is the term anchor baby and it is true. I have seen a case of one twenty one year old from Sierra Leone sponsoring their parents who then sponsor their children and over time this grows into hundreds of petitions.

The madness should end. Family based petitionsshould only be granted to military spouses of the military, vocatoinal visa holders or citizens or business people.

At 6/09/2006 8:50 AM, Blogger LA Sunset said...

I needs to be rethought and needs to be, real soon. I say at least one parent needs to be an full fledged American citizen, not a legal immigrant, but a citizen.

At 6/09/2006 8:50 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

Americans are not ready to become the cold-hearted bastards needed to enforce this kind of thing.

Bottom line is that Publius, in a way, is right. We've made this bed... now, until we make it different, we're going to have to lay in it.

I guess we need to know how many of you would vote for the other party if your representitive didnt support the position you advocate?

If most of you answer no, then you're still in the same boat as the soft mushy left that wont "take mothers from their children".

We can chit chat on this all day, but we are ignoring the fact that seriously enforcing immigration will (for the short term) wreck our econmy, worsen our relations around the world, put more bad PR on an already beleagured (spelling?) reputation, and strech our law enforcement infrastructure to it's limits.

Before we can even afford to think about enforcing immigration laws, we need to make our congress quit spending like teenage girls with a credit card.

We're debating the symantics of immigration reform and enforcment, and ignoring the forest for the trees.

At 6/09/2006 9:53 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Some commenters here might find interesting this article, entitled
Myth Vs Fact of Illegal Immigration.

Topics discusssed:

President Bush says illegals do the jobs Americans won’t do.

This is a nation of immigrants and they all add to America’s vitality.

Bush says a guest worker program will allow willing workers for willing employers, which are his corporate buddies.

Bush respects the sovereignty of the United States.

You can’t deport 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.

Illegals have a ‘right’ to come to the United States.

Mexico’s people love the USA, respect our language and the laws of our country.

Excerpt about one of the above:

Fact: You won’t have to deport any of them. It’s called “attrition through enforcement”. You demand the president and Congress enforce our immigration laws. We create 'counter critical mass' of Americans who overwhelm Bush and Congress with 'public opinion' and sheer will of the people to change history in favor of our Constitution and laws. We prosecute and jail employers of illegal aliens starting in Maine and sweeping slowly and effectively across the nation. We delete social services to illegals, housing, medical and welfare of any kind. Why? Illegals are not citizens and they are illegally in our country. Without jobs and a free ride, they have only one choice and that is to move back home and make a better life in their own country by changing their own country for the better. At that point, 18 million unemployed American workers will enjoy jobs that must rise to the market value of a First World nation. It means those CEOs at major corporations will not be able to pay for their Lear Jets and fifth $10 million Aspen home, but Americans will get the job done.

At 6/09/2006 12:17 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

The solution? Protect our national sovereignty. Once lost, never recovered.

At 6/09/2006 12:18 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

As I mentioned to WHT, I feel that national sovereignty is at stake. I submit that the costs of illegal immigration far outweigh the oft-touted benefits.

At 6/09/2006 12:24 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

the practice must come to and end.

But, instead, the talk of what amounts to amnesty and the further erosion of the rule of law are what we're going to get stuck with, in all likelihood. However, that might change if the politicos, who above all fear losing votes, get a strong enough message from their constituencies. Business might want that cheap labor, but those same businesses are not footing the bill for health care and for education--just to name two areas which are getting hard hit right now.

The 1986 amnesty stipulated strict control at the borders, but that portion got left out. So here we are, with an untenable situation.

I do have a heart. But the illegal invaders are playing the letter of the law (or at least how it's being applied) and violating the spirit of the law.

At 6/09/2006 12:26 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Americans are not ready to become the cold-hearted bastards needed to enforce this kind of thing.

I'm not so sure about that. "The American street" is aroil with anger--both liberals and conservatives. But the politicos are a different story; and what ultimately matters to them is garnering votes. Well, the Herndon voters, usually a Dem district, tossed out the Dems who were up for re-election; and the issue was illegal immigration.

At 6/09/2006 12:28 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
Annex Mexico!...107 million new US taxpayers...

Or several millions who pay in the minimum and collect all the benefits.

At 6/09/2006 12:29 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

All you have to look forward to are McCain or Giuliani who aren't going to do a damn thing other than call for some sort of amnesty by another name.

McCain--certainly. I haven't been following what Guiliani has to say.

But you're right in that the politicos have a different agenda than do their constitutents.

At 6/09/2006 12:30 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I say at least one parent needs to be an full fledged American citizen, not a legal immigrant, but a citizen.

Seems like a good idea to me. But watch for marriage-contracts to take off.

At 6/09/2006 12:32 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Too bad that this is not seriously discussed in any of the congressional debates.

Do our so-called elected reps bother to read the law and the precedents? If they do and they still preach the wrong line about immigration, those politicos should be OUT!

At 6/09/2006 12:41 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

The government certainly can't go around and backround check everyone.

1. Check the employers.

2. Use IRS to assist in the above check.

3. Check the school-registrations.

4. Check the public-library registrations.

5. Check PayChex and similar organizations.

6. Check the day-laborer centers.

Recently, one of our former students went to DMV to get a driver's license. Couldn't be done without a proper birth-certificate; that student's certificate was from another state and didn't have a "seal" as do the certificates issued in VA. Despite that student's apparent obvious American-birth, guess what? No dice! New Hampshire has proposed using DMV as a check point, and everybody would have to "recertify."

I know that some have objections to a National ID card. But I think that something akin could be established.

If we don't follow our original laws and keep amending and giving amnesty, what is going to happen to America?

That's the important question for the long term! BTW, be sure to read the link I posted about, about myth vs fact. Interesting stuff.

At 6/09/2006 12:45 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

You've mentioned those abuses before. Thank you for mentioning them again.

Think about the double standard: It's cruel to separate families, but it's okay for a woman to use her child as an amnesty card.

By not enforcing immigration laws to prevent hordes of unskilled workers to flood into this nation we are, in effect, creating another slave class, which becomes self-perpetuating and bursting with anger.

At 6/09/2006 12:46 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I'm interested to see if any comments have other court decisions, either to support or negate the information I posted in this blog article.

At 6/09/2006 1:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Americans are not ready to become the cold-hearted bastards needed to enforce this kind of thing.”

There is no cold-heartedness. There is no separation. From the Supreme Court rulings and the 14th amendment:

“'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, or 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.”

That means if your parents are illegally here or are not citizens, their baby is not a citizen. You can’t have just one or the other. If the parent is illegal, the kid has to be also. If the kid is illegal, the parent has to be, because they are the non-citizens who had the kid. Families won’t be split up because they are all illegal together.

What splitting are you referring to?

“Bottom line is that Publius, in a way, is right. We've made this bed... now, until we make it different, we're going to have to lay in it.”

No, Publius is wrong. Yes, we made a mistake and there will be consequences, but we in no way, shape, or form have to go along with the mistakes. America needs to admit there is a problem, fix it, and go on not making the same mistake again. You don’t say, ”Aw, dang, we messed up. I guess we just should keep messing up, ‘cause we certainly can’t try to fix our problem.” No, how stupid is that. You fix what’s wrong; you don’t go around it by amendments or amnesty. I could care less what is politically correct, what the world may think of us, or anything else, when something needs to be done, it needs to be done. Who cares what people are thinking about us. What did Canada do? What has England done? Why don’t you go to any country over there in Europe and demand some rights. Go over there and take down that countries flag and put yours up. See what happens to you. You’ll be shot. Revoking “alleged” citizenships is not heartless at all. A country can do what it wants. A country issues its citizenship. The ones wanting to be citizens should go through the process laid out in our Constitution to become a citizen. What right do they have to request amnesty, get to the front of the line, or be given amnesty at all?

Amnesty at such a level is insane.

“We can chit chat on this all day, but we are ignoring the fact that seriously enforcing immigration will (for the short term) wreck our econmy, worsen our relations around the world, put more bad PR on an already beleagured (spelling?) reputation, and strech our law enforcement infrastructure to it's limits.”

It will wreck our economy, eh? How do you know this? Can you see into the future? What source did you use to say it will hurt our economy? Do you know an economist, or is that just you talking? Didn’t we survive fine before they came?

Even if it did “hurt” the economy for a short time, in the long run, it would pay off. With the illegals gone, (you know, the ones getting our social security, welfare, and who knows what else) Americans can get what they paid for. Where is our tax money going? To the Illegal immigrant “find-a-job” building (There’s one near where I live). You know, the government funded group that helps illegals find jobs, housing, etc, at my dollar. My tax dollars are being spent to break the law. This is ridiculous.

As to our world reputation, who cares what they think? Are we in some competition for most humanitarian nation? Do we care what other countries think about us? Do we care what Iraq thinks about us? France? Heck, no, we need to get our country in order before things get any worse.

The one downside to this is, yes, our law-enforcement would suffer. This is true, but it has to be done sometime. If we wait longer, it will only get worse. We need to do it now and get it over with. We can’t prolong the inevitable.

To conclude,

I didn’t know it is wrong to uphold our nation’s laws. That a new one to me. I guess its okay to bend some of them so as to not step on anyone’s toes. Read between the lines a little on the Constitution. After all, we have a reputation to look out for. Maybe we should annex Mexico. While were at it, why don’t we annex the whole world. That way, there won’t be immigrants, no worries about PR, and the world will be a more peaceful place. (cough, cough)

Our Constitution is there for a reason. Should we follow it, or come up with alternatives because we don’t want to be unfair and “heartless.”


God Bless America!

At 6/09/2006 1:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



"The government certainly can't go around and backround check everyone.

1. Check the employers.
2. Use IRS to assist in the above check.
3. Check the school-registrations.
4. Check the public-library registrations.
5. Check PayChex and similar organizations.
6. Check the day-laborer centers."

That works, its just it will only work to an extent (which is what I was referring to). It won't catch everyone.


At 6/09/2006 1:40 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit

"Annex Mexico!"


Something along that line is already underway; the deadline, so to speak, is 2010, two years after the next election.

The idea (which has been simmering in the pot on the stove since before WWI) is to create a North American entity precisely resembling the European Union, only this entity would be called the "North American Union," complete with it's own currency, the "Amero."

It would also have a massive Mexico-to-Canada transportation system, made (to start with) of two major six-lane super highways and a rail system. This was the major "talking point" on the agenda for the meeting recently held by Fox, Martin, and Bush in Cancun, Mexico.

The whole problem of illegal aliens is not a problem for our president and his fellow "NAFTA-Plus" proponants; in fact, it sets in motion a situation - a blending, if you will, of massive numbers of people - which they hope to convince us is irreversible and impossible to remedy.

Getting illegals out of our country - even 20,000,000 of them, according to some sources - is not at all impossible. None of the draconian measures so often spoken of such as "concentration camps" are required - not at all.

It is done simply by removing the carrots and simultaneously applying the stick; once this process is underway, many illegals will no longer find the U.S. such an attractive and easy target. The northward flow will stop, and many will return home to pressure their governments to give up their oppressive ways so that they can have at home what they find so attractive here. The relatively small numbers who remain here can be dealt with quite easily.

I am a strong proponant of, as Hoover Institute economist Thomas Sowell has put it, of the free exchange of goods (as contrasted with the free exchange of people). Sowell points out that the consequences of the free, unfettered exchange of peoples are far different from the free, unfettered exchange of goods. One must always know that people who enter the country are not criminals, do not wish to destroy it (terrorists) and do not harbor contagious disease. We must know where they are and what they are doing, as well as know whether they leave when they agreed to.

I have no problem whatsoever with a close, even an intimate, economic relationship between sovereign nations, or with the necessary legal exchange of people to support the economic relationship.

Unfortunately, this is not the goal of the North American Union people. They want far more than the highly desireable intimate economic relationship among nations of the world.

When the whole idea was first born, the concept was first to unite various "regions" of the world politically, then economically, then militarily. After that, the unified "regions" would further unify into a world federation.

The objections of the populations of the target nations to the first attempts to unify them politically were so strong that the One World folks stepped back and instituted "Plan B."

"Plan B" was far less threatening; it was even palatable. Instead of beginning the regional unification process politically, it would be done economially, THEN politically, THEN militarily.

It worked; Europe was the first "experiment." Europe is now the "European Union" with its own currency, the "Euro." Political unification is underway, with a ruling body made up of citizens of the various member nations, and the free exchange of peoples across borders. Next will be military unification, already in the pipeline.

The European Union is the successful model that Bush is trying to follow. It would certainly be counterproductive to his cause of forming a North American Union, complete with the "Amero," to publicize the "original intent" of the 14th Amendment, or to discourage in any way the free access of peoples into our country. For a moment, I forgot myself, and almost spoke of "free exchange," which would be inaccurate, since the flow is unidirectional.

This is precisely why he abjectly refuses to secure our borders, why he supports the blanket amnesty of the Senate, why calls the members of the Minuteman organization "vigilantes," and why, under the pressure of about 70% of the population of the United States, he performs only cosmetic corrections of the border problem by sending down to the border a few thousand National Guardsmen - which effectively does nothing. His hope is that we will not see the ruse, that we will "settle down," and, as Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said, "their (that would be the American people's) attention span is short," so then he can procede with the unification unopposed.

But wait, there's more; once the various "regions" have been established, the idea is to further unify them into a federation of world states, where each of the formerly sovereign nations would submit to a world government.

This would mean that the very principles upon which this country was founded, our Constitution, unique in its description of a proper relationship between the government and the citizens (in that it is based on individual rights and the restriction of the powers of government vis a vis the individual citizen, NOT on the various "permissions" granted to individuals by an all powerful government) would fade until it disappeared under the weight of the massive world Collective.

Here's a statment made in the '70s by a One World proponant, professor of international law Richard A Falk (with connections with the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Federalist Association): "...regionalism has considerable appeal as a world order 'half-way house.' It seems more feasible in the near term as a step byond state sovereignty that can be used to dilute nationalist sentiments during a period when global loyalties need to grow stronger."

There's a song from "Camelot" that King Arthur, knowing he is about to lose the final battle, sings. He mourns the loss of the dream that was Camelot, saying "...Camelot...a brief, shining moment..."

This is the fate that awaits the United States if Bush and his fellow One World proponants have their way. The United States, the only country in the history of mankind to be designed from scratch and based on the Enlightenment principles describing the rights of the individual, will disappear from the face of the earth.

Our culture, our discoveries, our philosophic advances will not influence the rest of the world, they will fade under the old, familiar weight of an all powerful government that issues permission slips to think, to create, to produce, and to be happy.

I will NEVER accept the destruction of our national sovereignty on the altar of a world-wide collectivist doctrine, be it disguised as Islam's "caliphate" or in the form of a World Federation of States desired by the One World crowd.

Islam is only one facet of the problem we face; it's more obvious, more visible, in a way "sexier," but it is no less dangerous.

Please, folks, do read an article from FrontPageMag. It's called "The UN's 'Borderless World" and is an excellent description of the kind of thinking that the One World proponants have in mind for the US and other productive nations. It particularly focuses on the issue of "irregular immigration" (that would be "illegal aliens").

It's by no means the whole picture, but it is a very important and revealing piece of the puzzle.

At 6/09/2006 1:43 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Missing debate class so early in the summer vacation? Hehehe.

You don’t say, ”Aw, dang, we messed up. I guess we just should keep messing up, ‘cause we certainly can’t try to fix our problem.”

Another way of manifesting lack of accountability and inviting defeat. Both of those are favorites of politicians, but they'll never admit the latter.

The measures I mentioned are not complete fixes, just places to start.

I do know for a fact all the hoops which any private ESL institution has to jump through with INS (I-20 forms). At the last of the ESL institutions at which I worked (The school was Korean-owned, with 99% Korean students, mostly adults), the immigration status of the students was checked and carefully so; this kind of checking didn't happen until post-9/11. A lot of the burden fell on the school, but INS agents actually visited to check visas. One or two students that I know of were arrested and deported; several other students heard about the new regulations and stopped coming to class.

Check out Cubed's comment above. Excerpt: It is done simply by removing the carrots and simultaneously applying the stick; once this process is underway, many illegals will no longer find the U.S. such an attractive and easy target.

And be sure to read the article in FPM.

At 6/09/2006 2:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

JS is making some good points here. He is not ready to give up the fight; we need more people like him. I’m sure that he realizes that the issues of illegal immigration are not going to be resolved overnight, and the problems cannot be solved by doing one thing, or another. Anti-illegal immigration issues must involve a multifaceted approach, and employ the entire nation’s resources. In this regard, the federal and state governments must form a partnership of shared focuses that will enable a concerted effort. There is no reason why state and local law enforcement officers should not be able to determine the legal residency of people who they apprehend during criminal or regulatory infractions.

The birthing of children on American soil by illegal aliens is more widespread than anyone imagines; just ask people living along the US/Mexican border. Pregnant women come here illegally expressly for that purpose. Thus, all medical facilities within 100 miles of the border should be classified in such a way as to preclude any claim for citizenship on behalf of these children; so that is one thing that could be done to correct the problem. No birth certificate should ever be issued by any state until it is proven that the child, or its parents, are legally entitled to be in the United States.

Federal, state, and local officials should begin cracking down on the employment of illegal aliens. When these employers get thrown into jail and/or assessed stiff fines, they will creatively discover other ways of running their businesses – hopefully, legally. Conviction should be based on a felony charge.

WE THE PEOPLE must insist that congressional leaders begin removing their heads from their behinds on this issue as a condition of their continued employment. WE THE PEOPLE must flood their collective offices with so many letters that these rather high-paid “servants of the people” will be forced to act. Some congressional leaders are now claiming that it is necessary to put together programs to “counter” the anti-immigrant feeling that is developing in this country. Balderdash. There is no “anti-immigrant” feeling in this country. It is rather an “anti-illegal immigrant” feeling, and one that is justified. Frosty Wooldridge’s points are well made.

Now the question is . . . when will Americans begin to demand their country back? Until that happens, I can pretty much guarantee nothing will happen and that one day, in the not to distant future, the American Dream will be lost forever.

At 6/09/2006 2:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cubed said, "The European Union is the successful model that Bush is trying to follow."

The EU may be crumbling as we speak. It is not altogether popular among all, or even most, Europeans. I personally think that what the EU has accomplished thus far merely completes the task began by Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler. I can't imagine anyone who seriously thinks that Americans should "unionize" with Mexico and Canada. What significant gains should the USA expect? None? Right.

At 6/09/2006 2:42 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

The Amero? What a frightening though!

It may take a couple of decades, but getting the illegals out would happen, if we "applied the carrot and the stick!"

Not only taking away the bennies on all levels would work, but DESTROYING employers who worked illegals with draconian fines and jail time would make the prospect of hiring an illegal an unsavory one. Next, we would have to increase police prescense, as a temporary spike in crime would no doubt result in rioting and theft.

At the same time we could encourage Mexico to jail her own criminals by charging for every one that we must jail.

And as for the "splitting up families" issue... No more anchor babies. Period. If we indeed want to grant citizenship to every baby born here we can, with the stipulation that if the mother is found to be illegal, the child may return to Mexico with the parents, with the option of returning to the US upon adulthood.The child would then be required to pass a high school equivilancy test.

Alternatively, the child could be placed in foster care with a legal relative.

At 6/09/2006 3:24 PM, Blogger Mike's America said...

Beamish: "Annex Mexico! What's the worst that could happen?"

You know the answer to that: A dozen new Democrat Senators and dozens of new Democrat/socialist congressman. Add to that a completely corrupt political infrastructure that would make the Ward politics in Chicago look like an ethics convention.

At 6/09/2006 5:45 PM, Blogger Dan Zaremba said...

President Bush says illegals do the jobs Americans won’t do.

Sounds like BS to me.
People will do danything if the price is right.

At 6/09/2006 9:13 PM, Blogger Kiddo said...

I'm glad that this discussion is being brought up again, especially the original topic. Good one AOW. Also, the fact that the "beloved undocumented" are being promoted in this country at present by people who DO want to see them stay as a permanent underclass. I've been pounding on that hypocrisy for quite some time.

As for some more hypocrisy, "made this bed and now we must lie in it"? We made a LOT of beds when our Founders wrote the Constitution. We're thankfully not still lying in all of them now.

Ducky--name me one bit of land on the planet that wasn't conquered or invaded....or to use your oh-so-modern term, "stolen".

At 6/10/2006 12:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, Publius, I hate to disagree with you again, but I shall.

"these children born to illegals were not just told they are citizens, but they also received a birth certificate, a social security number, and have been granted every freedom and right as the rest of us, they are American citizens as much as I or anyone else might not like that."

Um, no. Like I said before, just because they are told they are citizens, does not mean they are. A law is still a law no matter what happens (or how little enforecment may be). If you still don't except the fact that its a law, regardless of whether or not people know it, I will try another angle. Do you remember the part in the Constitution about how state governments, their legislation, and such cannot supercede the Constitution? Well, who issues birth certificates? Isn't it genereally the states? So, if the states issue the certificates, they supercede the constitution, don't they? (Remember what the 14th says) Isn't that illegal (Even more so than whats going on now)? The 14th amendment states in order to obtain birthright citizenship, one must have parents who are citizens. Well, the states kind of ignored that (if they didn't know better that's there problem. They should have known). So what happens? A giant amnesty? I think not.

There is no unfairness (a country controls the rules of naturalization, not the ones wanting to be naturalized) because they never were citizens to begin with. Their papers are void not only because of non-citizen parents, but also, because the state issuing certificates goes against the 14th amendment. If you can't follow my countries rules get out of my country. I don't want you here if you can't accept the fact that my country has authority over you when you are in my countries boundaries.

What is fair? What in life can be "fair" to everyone? One person wants this "fairness," but it won't be "fair" to the other. There won't always be a solution "fair" to everyone, but in this situation (at least), there is a "law" we have to follow. America's laws are being broken and that cannot be excused.


At 6/10/2006 1:02 AM, Blogger David Schantz said...

AOW, Great post. I was thinking I'd like to share it with my United States Representative if you don't mind. Could you e-mail me about that when you get a chance.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

At 6/10/2006 8:22 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

This blogger prefers the term "illegal invaders."

At 6/10/2006 8:31 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Thank you for your excellent comment.

Now the question is . . . when will Americans begin to demand their country back?

The rumblings are there, but organization and an effective plan are not. And some of the people doing the complaining still hire illegals to do "the work which Americans won't do."

A little story...I happen to drive an undercover police interceptor which I purchased from the county. One day, I pulled up to a cushy home, the mansion of one of my piano students. A work crew was there, doing some renovations. At least three of them took off running when they saw my car! I tell you that they jumped hedges and fled! When I told the piano parent of what had just happened, her response was "Well, that's the crew the contractor uses. Not my problem." Believe me that this family can well afford to pay Americans to do the work.

So...prosecute the employers and the head-in-the-sand homeowners as well.

Enforcing the law is not draconian. Otherwise, none of us would get speeding tickets. :)

At 6/10/2006 8:33 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

The Constitution should take precedence, as you've pointed out. Activists judges, however, often see to the contrary.

But don't give up! The Constitution and the American Dream are worth fighting for.

At 6/10/2006 2:26 PM, Blogger Kiddo said...

Ducky, answer the damned question. Or are you still looking? Probably still looking. Keep trying. Don't think you'll get too lucky with my last challenge.

AOW--I agree on that last point. That's why I love Scalia so much ;)

At 6/10/2006 9:18 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...


The amount of discussion generated by the whole border/illegal invader (LOVE THAT!) issue is encouraging right up to the level of being inspiring.

Solving the "anchor baby" matter alone, whether through the acknowledgment of the original intent of the 14th Amendment or through its replacement with an amendment that is crystal clear, would be HUGE!

The problem goes way beyond being born in one of the fifty states, or even in one of our embassies.

When my husband, a Navy anesthesiologist and CATF surgeon, Head, Fleet Surgical Team II, was on his way to Iraq (Gulf I), the LHA he was on was redeployed to the coast of Liberia for a rescue mission.

Liberia was in the process of hacking and burning to death all foreigners, so the personnel of all the foreign embassies etc. there had been told to gather down on the beach to await the arrival of the Saipan. The Marines (yea!!!) helicoptered them back to the ship, and the wife of one of the diplomats from the Lebanese Embassy delivered a fine, healthy baby boy about 20 minutes later.

The picture is really cute - all the Navy medical personnel, Mom, Dad, and newborn, all gathered around with big grins.

The birth certificate was interesting too; it had the name of the ship and its location, given as latitude and longitude. Since a Navy warship is sovereign territory of the United States, the little boy - probably about 16 or so now - is eligible for U.S. citizenship.

We have to stop this business of "automatic citizenship by birth" thing. It's gotten way out of control.

Another HUGE part of the solution would be to solve the problem of hiring illegal invaders. Most people are so angry at the employers that they want to lock them up and throw away the key. This is because they believe all the propaganda they have been fed by those who are really responsible. Can you say, "the government is complicit?"

I am in the minority when I say that the proper way to solve it isn't by punishing the employers (I'll explain why in a minute), but simply by making it unprofitable for them to hire the illegals.

This is EASILY done simply - and I do mean "simply" - by insisting that every person hired must have a SSN, and then (here's the clincher), insist that the SSN of the employee match the one on the Social Security Administration's records. If there is no match, then the employer can't claim the employee's wages as a tax deduction, so it becomes unprofitable for him to hire the illegals.

A lady in our area called in to our local radio talk show to say that when her son, 19, went to try to get a job, his SSN had already been "used" - about 80,000 times! That is not a typo. I'm not sure whether it was "82" or "84" etc., but it was around 80,000. When they thought they had that straightened out, he applied again, about a year later. It had been "used" again, 39,000 times!

This is a real problem, and to match the SSN of the employee with the SS Administration in order for the employer to claim the employee's wages as a tax deduction (they don't have to match for them to do so now) would be a very easy solution.

It would also relieve the burden of being a law enforcement official from the employer, so he could do what he does best, which is to run his business.

Now I said I would explain why I think punishing employers would accomplish nothing. Let me start by recommending another article, this one by economist and professor emeritus (George Mason University) Walter Williams. The article is a "mythbuster" re: the cause (it's NOT the "evil employer"!) of why the employers find the illegals so attractive as employees. The article is called Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly.

It's a quick read (two pages) and it will surprise you with the truth about the snake oil they're trying to sell you (even though you should be used to that tactic by now).

Williams will tell you things you never learned in school, AND he will bust open myths like... Oh, you just go read it! He says it SO much better than I can!


You got it right!

"...just because they are told they are citizens does not mean they are." So true!

It is certainly unfortunate, and doubtless is a terrible disappointment for someone to be the victim of a terrible mistake like that, but just because the person who told someone something like that was wrong about the law does not mean that you should be compensated with the gift of citizenship!

In ancient Rome, where legal concepts were very advanced (and where we got so many of our own), there was a doctrine that stated "Ignorance of the law excuses no one."

A lot of our legal beagles used to say that, too - I don't know if they still do...

And AOW is so right; our Constitution is SO worth fighting for.

A "constitution" is a document describing the relationship between an organization and its membership, and ours is unique in human history, often called the Jewel of the Enlightenment.

It is the first document ever to hold the rights of the individual above the power of the government, and the conditions created because of this restriction on governmental power vis a vis the citizen is the reason we have become so attractive to people from all around the world. There is nothing like our Constitution anywhere else on the planet.

If there were, most people would be happy to remain in the countries of their birth. There is nearly always a very special affection for the place where one is born, and if rights of the individual are respected, then there are few reasons to leave home.

If Mexico had our Constitution and understood just what is meant by a "right," we almost certainly would not be having this discussion.

Mexico is a beautiful country, full of natural resources of all kinds, and her people have demonstrated that under the proper conditions, they are ambitious and hard working; the only thing keeping Mexico's people (or the people anywhere in the world) miserable is a corrupt, oppressive government whose disregard of citizens' rights is far too easy.

Of course, the fundamental problem is to understand what a "right" is. That's a REAL problem, even in our country, where the Constitution is slowly being shredded.

At 6/11/2006 6:05 PM, Blogger G_in_AL said...


I agree with the principle of your argument, I just think you're fooling yourself in a a delusion of grandure.

I think it's fantasy to look at the Constitution and assume that we can suddenly reverse the last 20 years of interpretation, start kicking folks out, enforce laws that have been by-passed for decades, and suddenly "whip things into shape". This isnt a messy room we have to clean up, it's much larger, and there are many more things involved (aka: side effects) than just the temporary annoyance you imply.

First off, look at things from a pure tax base, because just the illegals dont go, it's their families too, and a good many of them buy things and pay sales tax on those things. Sure, they dont pay income tax, but when they buy the frozen burrito for breakfast, and they pay the sales tax on it... thats $$ the govn't would be out of.

Plus, you're looking at a serious customer definciancy problem (the "demand" part of "supply and demand"). Quickly and effectivly removing that many customers from our markets would make the prices fall through the floor, which makes salries fall through the floor, or production needs fall resulting in lost jobs.

Aside from that, now the jobs that "Americans Wont Do" are going to need a lot more pay to get Americans to do, and hence your companies cost for lawn care just tripled. Now they've got higher facilities maintence costs, hence higher operating costs, hence that ham you got last year is just a memory, along with your raise.

Look, I'm all for correcting this, but lets quick playing make-belive like we can suddenly snap our fingers and start making things better with just s light annoyance that shouldnt trouble us too much.

At 6/11/2006 11:22 PM, Blogger In Russet Shadows said...

Interesting. I never knew that birthright citizenship was a fantasy dreamed up by the open border nuts. It would stand to reason, but it's always nice to read what those who passed the original law have to say about it. Textual relativism casts a long shadow; without it, political correctness could not exist. I.e. it's the same old story. When morals go, politics and law follow.

At 6/12/2006 8:54 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

now the jobs that "Americans Wont Do" are going to need a lot more pay to get Americans to do, and hence your companies cost for lawn care just tripled.

I don't use a lawn service. And most of the people who do use such a service can well afford an increase in price.

I also have another concern...The building market has substantially slowed down, and this is a nationwide trend. Where are all the laborers going to go now? What jobs will they do?

I remember a day when it was easy to find local teens to do the yard work. But now those teens are being underbid by cheap labor.

The problem with illegal invaders is a big problem, but I think that it's solvable. Is the solution pretty? No! But not addressing the problem is going to lead to even more problems than we now have. If the border is not secured, what will be the stats in another 10 years? How many people can you have in your house before your house is overwhelmed? And let's not forget about the huge amounts of money which illegals send back to their home countries instead of spending that same money here in our economy. Buying burritos is a small drop in the bucket compared to the money wired home.

At 6/12/2006 8:57 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

We have to stop this business of "automatic citizenship by birth" thing. It's gotten way out of control.

Right! The abuses of birthright citizenship have reached the critical point, particularly--but not exclusively--in border states.

At 6/12/2006 9:29 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

From this source:

How’s immigration doing in your city or state?
In Colorado, immigration adds four million people in 60 years, which will place our state in a water crisis we won't be able to solve. We'll be 'eating' the Brown Cloud over Denver with every breath because it will double in toxicity. Gridlock traffic will paralyze transportation. Our schools already suffer 67 percent drop out/flunk out rates in Denver Public Schools. It's already happening and that's why the 'white flight' articles showed Denver parents taking their kids away from schools inundated with illegal alien kids. The fact stands that 60 percent of Mexican illegals quit school before graduating. That kind of classroom degrades education for Coloradan students.

But what really fries me about proponents of illegal immigration in Denver and super rich places like Vail--is their support of lawlessness. It stands against everything this society is based upon. Illegal proponents engage in lawlessness because it is a federal crime to “... aid, assist, encourage, or in any way help an illegal alien to remain in the United States no matter what your personal convictions.” It's a crime that fines employers $2,000 for every illegal alien hired and up to five years in prison. Yet, we've got so much fraud going on in Denver and Vail it's sickening. We're being defrauded by employers who hire illegals, by landlords who house them, income tax cheats who pay under the table, by welfare cheats who assist illegals and destroyed classroom education. Those assisting illegals cost us $564.1 million annually for education, $40 million for prison costs housing convicted illegals and $38.4 million for anchor babies and related medical costs....

Like the people on the Titanic, we're going to pay and nothing will help us once we hit 'critical mass' of this lawless population iceberg.

The article goes on to discuss the situation is Kansas.

At 6/12/2006 9:36 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

You might be interested in this:

At the end of Part 31 of my series on "Mental Health, Education and Social Control," I referred to the goal of global "integration" on the part of the Bush administration. This was also the goal of the Clinton administration and of the power elite in general. Their plan has been globally to integrate regional economic arrangements and then advocate their management by a World Socialist Government. Currently there is an effort to integrate the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and that is why American politicians have no real desire to control our borders despite their posturing to the contrary....

One part of this "global integration" in 1995 was the agreement between the U.S. and the European Community establishing a cooperation program in higher education and vocational education and training. The agreement, signed December 21 of that year, called for "improving the quality of human resource development...Transatlantic student mobility...and thus portability of academic credits." In this regard, a Joint Committee would reach decisions by consensus....

There is more information in the article.

At 6/13/2006 6:57 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...


Sorry to be back so late! I would be delighted to write a sort of template letter, or, if you'd like, just use the comment itself. I truly do not believe I can do a better job than you!

I have a blogging partner (Eleanor) who is incredible at finding little known facts about just about everything that there is, and she has given me 17 additional sources on the 14th Amendment. I had already looked it up in a fair number of places, including university law schools, but for the most part, they just repeated the amendment's words, and didn't offer much, if anything, in the way of history, intent, discussion, analysis, etc.

If you'd like, please go to "" and let me know if you'd like to have the list; if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend as a general resource, and for the many articles on this issue.

It's a group of amazing authors, with an amazing scope of essays, links, etc. - I think everybody here could find something useful at that site.


Post a Comment

<< Home