Sicilianthing

The Single Most Threatening Issue of our Nation’s History and the coming E******ns - WARNING !


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


September 30, 2018
Birthright Citizenship and Natural Rights
By Paul Gottfried

Michael Anton, who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush's administration and later a pro-Trump blogger for the Journal of American Greatness, has acquired additional fame as a critic of granting citizenship to the offspring of i*****l a***ns. Anton's work has not gone unnoticed.

Advocates of giving instant citizenship to "anchor babies" have predictably attacked him as a r****t for questioning their generous gesture.

Supposedly, the Fourteenth Amendment provides for a right to citizenship for anyone born on American soil. And though the same amendment requires that those who are granted this right are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the American government, those groups who were thought to be outside this jurisdiction, we are told, are Indian tribes and the children of foreign diplomats.

Presumably, in both these cases, those who were born on American soil were subject to another jurisdiction, whether a foreign government or a tribal council with specific rights granted by Congress.

In a long article in Claremont Review, Anton shows that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not mean to grant citizenship to the babies of whoever came here illegally or in order to have babies on American soil.

His arguments warrant our attention.

It is highly unlikely, as Anton's opponents concede, that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment had in mind "anchor babies" when they discussed birthright citizenship.

They were thinking specifically about negro freemen, who had recently been s***es. The authors were undoing the effects of the Dred Scott decision issued by the Supreme Court in 1857 that denied that b****s were eligible for citizenship under the Constitution.

Although in 1898 the court had acknowledged the citizenship right of a child born to Chinese parents in the U.S., Anton points out that in this case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the justices were acknowledging the citizenship of the child of legal residents. Significantly, Anton argues, those who held the minority position in this case probably understood the Fourteenth Amendment better. One of its authors, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, expressed concern that the amendment not be worded in such a way as to result in the excessive awarding of citizenship. Although advocates of citizenship rights for the children of i******s concede that the Fourteenth Amendment's authors may not have been thinking about their case when they granted citizenship to those who were subject to American "jurisdiction," they might have taken this step if they were living now. But there is no reason, according to Anton, to ascribe views to people in the past because someone at this moment holds certain convictions.

Anton shows the marks of his West Coast Straussian education in how he frames his political theoretical arguments. As a point of information, he took a graduate degree at Claremont under Harry Jaffa, and the article being discussed was published in the West Coast Straussian f**gship publication Claremont Review. According to this persuasion, the United States was founded on natural rights principles, from whence derive our moral right to exist and our guide for interpreting the Constitution. Citizenship must therefore be understood in relation to this natural rights doctrine, which finds its most oft-quoted expression in the passage of the Declaration of Independence about God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This for Jaffaites is the bedrock of the regime set up by America's Founders, and it was vindicated in Lincoln's struggle against the s***eholding South in the Civil War.

Without evaluating these beliefs (which are not mine), it is clear that they inform Anton's view about birthright citizenship. Although a law of the soil (jus soli) was enough to establish citizenship under the English monarchy, once Americans formed a new "social compact" with the Declaration, according to Anton, this ceased to be the case. By affirming the principles contained in the Declaration, we became citizens of a republic bottomed on natural right. Membership in the social compact depended on "consent of the governed" and therefore could be repudiated if someone left the compact and joined a foreign political entity.

There may be another factor that explains the divide in question. Significantly, the Roman, British, and other empires invoked jus soli to establish who was subject to the sovereign. This pertained to those who were expected to serve the monarch, rather than who would exercise the rights of democratic citizenship. Presumably jus soli would not apply in a republic in which citizens would be governing themselves. It is one thing by virtue of one's subjection to be obliged to serve in the king's army; it's another to enjoy the right to co-govern with other authorized citizens.

Normally republics have been much more fastidious than empires about who could join them. That's because political rights among citizens, everything being equal, are more important than being under a sovereign. In the case of the Swiss Republic, one traditionally claimed citizenship by right of inheritance from parents (jus sanguinis). Foreigners who wished to become citizens had to wait many years and to be approved for this privilege by a municipality and canton as well as the federal republic. These requirements went back centuries and had nothing to do with the idea that all men are created equal and are born with certain inalienable rights.

Almost all European and most African countries continue the practice of jus sanguinis, as Anton duly notes, and that may result at least partly from the fact that these regimes view themselves as constitutional republics (wh**ever they may be in practice). In 1990, the Germans converted to the jus solis, in order to accommodate the influx of refugees and their growing third-world immigration. Germans may still be paying the price for their virtue-signaling, as their country now has the largest Muslim population in Western or Central Europe, with all the attendant social problems.

In fine, the distinction between birthright citizenship and the acquisition of citizenship through parents tells us more about the difference between imperial and republican rule than it does about who believes in natural rights.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

S - I just want to point out that the article you posted does nothing whatsoever to support the claim in the title of your post.

While the article is indeed a very interesting one, and worthy of inclusion in any debate of contemporary ideas of what constitutes citizenship today, it quotes no writings that support clarification of what the framers of The Constitution meant. For that we would need to look at what they themselves wrote at the time they were writing The Constitution. If you could share that, I and many others would be most appreciative.

Sicilianthing

>>>>

First, are you one ‘they’ call a ‘Constitutional Expert’?

boofhead

It is simple. The 14th amendment said that the babies born in the country of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the nation (ie were legally in the country in the first place; with a visa or some other document) would become citizens. If the parents (and that could be mom and/or pop) were legal, so is the baby. If they were illegal the baby is not a citizen. Anchor babies simply do not exist, not here and not in any other country. The whole concept of anchor babies is crazy. Think about it.

If you apply for a visa you will be denied if you are a woman who is pregnant (beyond a certain time and obviously if your visa is for a year you cannot be even a little bit pregnant), for this reason. It is I think in the application process so if you are pregnant and you come here and have your baby here you are guilty of fraud and your visa would be cancelled and you would be deported plus your baby would be denied citizenship and also deported.

That is the law as it is written.

I flew for many years between Asia and the USA and was quite adept at identifying pregnant women who would wear bulky clothes to hide their condition when they arrived on a tourist visa, obviously intending to have their baby in the US so that in the future that kid would have the right to citizenship. Pissed me off but it was also obvious that the customs officers were very aware of the practice and did nothing to stop it.

Sicilianthing

>>>>

Thanks Boof, Awesome Post...

I’m actually going to take it a step further and deeper if he tries it again.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Thank you for taking the time to share that point rather than just disparaging me for having asked a question. I can see that it would make the issue more complex than it seems on the surface.

There are 2 things relative to the "jurisdiction" issue that I think deserve further discussion.

1-What did the writers of The Constitution mean by that clause, and are there other writings of theirs that would help clarify?

2- Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause, himself argued that it did not make Native Americans citizens of the US because they already owed their allegiance to their specific tribes, though they were born within the boundaries of the United States. Based on that one might argue that babies lack the ability to declare allegiance to any nation at all, and
ought to have, at the least, rights to dual citizenship - that of the place they were born and that of their parents.

I do not know the answer, but I am interested in learning more about the clause and why it has been interpreted the way it has been for so long.

boofhead

Everybody who reads anything in these and similar posts t***slates it based on their perceptions and prejudices. They ignore what might offend them and accept that which they think supports their viewpoint. Normal human behavior.

But if one wants to pontificate on a subject and expects to be listened to, h/she should at least research it first. Merely repeating some opinion from some other person does not make it real or true. In the College system a student cannot write original work because it cannot be attributed, thus only opinions that have been previously published can be used when writing a paper for assessment and a grade. This is, on its face, ridiculous. Why should my opinion, as an original thought, not have the same value as that of a person who has published before? What makes that work more correct than mine? Answer: Nothing. My opinion is a good as anyone else's. Thus when I say something I have researched it. I have read the original document and considered what it says before I opine.

In this matter all I had to do is read the law. It was written by people who had a much greater knowledge and understanding of English than today's population and especially that of today's educated people who are much more interested in politics than the t***h. The clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a simple one, easily understood, with only one possible meaning. It means a person, in this case the mother, since the baby has not yet been born and cannot be under any jurisdiction, has to be in the country legally. This is common in most countries and was common at the time the amendment was written. One would have to twist the language beyond its breaking point to come to any other conclusion. Nevertheless our modern progressives have managed to change the meaning and the sheeple go along with it, turning the law on its head in the process.

A woman comes over the border illegally and has a baby. That baby then becomes a citizen? In what universe? How can that baby be subject to the jurisdiction of the State? A State that had no knowledge of its existence? With no permission for the mother to be there? Hey, you had the kid, you own it. Yet we say it is inhumane to kick the mother out and not keep the kid which is also inhumane (separating families shock horror) so we knuckle under to the pressure and let both stay? Why then was the mother even there having her kid in our country in the first place? Because she knew the i***ts who live here will then have sympathy and let her stay. How is this legal? Certainly not under our Constitution.

There is one way a kid becomes a citizen at birth and that is not dependent on the mother's status and that is if the kid is born at sea or in an airplane that is in international waters (or airspace), when the Mom can claim US citizenship if the airplane or ship is one belonging to an American company. And of course the Mom is legally on board (under the jurisdiction thereof).

If the mother was not in the country legally there could be no other result than to deport both mother and child, as is done universally around the world. The 14th Amendment does not have a meaning not already included in the original document and was not written to allow an i*****l a***n to obtain rights not permitted under the law or to subvert the Constitution.

Sicilianthing

>>>>

Wow, Now that was a Fantastic explanation of the Facts.

Thanks Boof seriously...