Thread: The Advance of Bloodline Citizenship

Townhall Columnists

Michael Gerson
The Advance of Bloodline Citizenship

EMAIL MICHAEL GERSON |

Civil War America did not lack for unpopular immigrants. The 1860 census found that 13.2 percent of the U.S. population was foreign-born. The figure today is 12.3 percent. During the 14th Amendment debate, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania complained that birthright citizenship would include Gypsies, "who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen." Others objected that the children of Chinese laborers would be covered. Supporters of the 14th Amendment conceded both cases -- and defended them. Said Sen. John Conness of California: "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

The Radical Republicans who wrote the 14th Amendment were, in fact, quite radical. They were critical, not just of the Confederacy's view of citizenship, but of the Constitution's original silence on the issue, which, in their view, betrayed the promise of the Declaration of Independence. Their main goal was expressed in birthright citizenship: To prevent a future majority from stealing the rights of children of any background, as long as they were born in America.

Today's dispute over birthright citizenship reveals the immigration debate in its starkest form. Usually, opponents of illegal immigration speak of giving lawbreakers what they deserve. But this does not apply in the case of an infant. Consider two newborn babies at, say, Parkland Hospital in Dallas. One is the child of citizens, the other of illegal immigrants. Critics of birthright citizenship look at the child of immigrants and feel ... disturbed? Outraged? But why? Do they see a child somehow tainted by illegality? That hardly seems fair. A burden on resources? No more than any other poor child. An alien lacking allegiance? How could they possibly know? Why not a soldier, or an entrepreneur, or, as the Constitution specifically permits, a president?

For nearly a century and a half, Americans have taken the view that these two children at Parkland start their lives as equals. They acquire their rights, not because of their parentage or their bloodline or the permission of politicians, but because they are born in the USA.

The radical, humane vision of the 14th Amendment can be put another way: No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelG ... hip/page/2

Quote:
"For nearly a century and a half, Americans have taken the view that these two children at Parkland start their lives as equals."

However, although it does not affect their legal status, this was before illegal aliens wishing to have their babies at Parkland Hospital in Dallas became entitled to a full complement of benefits not available to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants at U.S. taxpayer expense. These include, but may not be not limited to: free pre-natal counseling for nine months before the baby's birth; and what evidently are ongoing supplies of free baby formula and disposable diapers afterwards. And, of course, the passage of EMTALA (The Emergency Medical and Active Labor Act of 1986) set the stage by sweepingly providing that all who come to the labor room at Parkland and all other U.S. hospitals "receiving federal monies" must be accomodated without questioning the parents' legal status or their ability to pay (as is required of everyone else). Isn't it amazing, though, that illegal aliens, who now represent the preponderence of deliveries each year at Parkland Hospital, have become to "make appointments" and avail themselves of a variety of benefits before they go into "active labor" nine months later?

The radical, humane vision of the 14th Amendment can be put another way: No child born in America can be judged unworthy by John Boehner, because each is his equal.

That is not even historically accurate the Forteenth Amendment as it was passed did not include the children of illegal aliens the status quo is caused by Horace Grays opinion on the Wong Kim Ark Decision thity years later.

Sure it seems cruel, but truthfully, that childs parents have a homeland to which they likely pledge their loyalty to.

These parents use their children as covers to remain here, and a means to gain financial benefits from the government. I feel sorry for those children, but their parents are the ones they need to turn to when there is trouble with their parents illegallity in this nation, and ask them "why did you do this to me?". Yet it always gets turned on Americans as though we drug their parents over the border, caused them to get pregnant and give birth here.....

Mr. Gerson is not only a clown ... but no historian.

What a crock.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

taken from this site: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html

That's not the only site I've seen that quote at, just the current one I have up.