Thread: Tancredo: Fox News, Bill O’Reilly Rush To Defend Birthright Citizenship

by Tom Tancredo
21 Aug 2015
216 comments

Bill O’Reilly says birthright citizenship was established by the 14th Amendment, which suggests O’Reilly writes more books than he reads.

This past week, O’Reilly tried to bully Donald Trump into accepting that myth, which happens to be the biggest politically correct lie of the decade. Shame on you, Bill O’Reilly, for not doing your homework.

The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a close friend of President Lincoln, stated, “[The 14th amendment] 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….” Moreover, the 1896 US Supreme Court decision often cited as affirming citizenship for children born to immigrants, US v. Wong Kim Ark, concerned only a LEGAL immigrant.

Doing a little homework reveals that no Supreme Court case has ever directly confronted the question of birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens. That is a fact no matter how many times O’Reilly and the Fox team try to obfuscate the matter.

To be fair, O’Reilly isn’t the only FOX News personality who went off the rails in defense of birth tourism and birthright citizenship. The usually sagacious Judge Andrew Napolitano also pontificated confidently and joined the FOX pile-on, as did several of Fox’s Blonde Bombers. And sadly, they are all wrong.

What Donald Trump and many conservatives and legal scholars are proposing is simple.

Congress should pass a law repealing birthright citizenship for children of foreign citizens, with the sole exception being children of legal permanent residents. Children born to business travelers, foreign students, tourists and illegal aliens would not be automatically citizens of the United States. That law would be challenged and tested in federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court would then decide the issue. Why are liberals and FOX News so afraid of asking the Supreme Court to decide the issue?

It may be news to FOX’s O’Reilly, but there is a large body of legal scholarship supporting the view that the 14th Amendment did NOT encompass illegal aliens in its grant of citizenship by the mere accident of birth on American soil. Respected libertarian scholar Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School has articulated that view, and so has Chapman University Law School Dean John Eastman, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Ed Erler, and many others.

Nor is this a new political issue. When in Congress, I sponsored the first bill on this problem, and many bills to abolish birth tourism and birthright citizenship have been introduced over the past decade.

In April, the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA). Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has also introduced a bill on this subject. In the House committee hearing, Prof. Graglia of the University of Texas said in his testimony, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one that makes unauthorized entry into the country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry: a grant of American citizenship.”

Since both views can find support among legal scholars, many people are wondering, what is the basis for Fox’s passionate defense of the status quo? How often do we see FOX jumping in the hot tub with the Huffington Post and The Nation magazine?

There is more at stake in this debate than the future citizenship of children born to illegal aliens. Every year, hundreds of children are born in American hospitals to the wives of foreign students who have legal visas to study at American universities. These children, whose parents owe their own citizenship and their allegiances to Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil and 100 other countries, are now US citizens and perfect “anchor babies” should their parents at a later date decide to return to the US and claim legal residence by virtue of “family reunification.”

Forgive me for speculating, but it appears to me the most likely reason for FOX’s odd commitment to the liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment lies not in a sober examination of the scholarship on the issue but in FOX’s hostility to the candidacy of Donald Trump. Trump wants to repeal birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, so FOX has joined conventional liberal opinion in opposing it. Welcome to FOX’s My Spin Zone.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-citizenship/

Exactly right, Tom Tancredo!

It's not just illegal aliens, it's temporary immigrants and visa holders and visitors. It's outrageous. The 14th Amendment does not condone or mandate this either. It doesn't even condone or mandate green card holders.

Related:

http://www.alipac.us/f9/bill-oreilly...-again-322384/

Originally Posted by Jean

In April, the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA). Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has also introduced a bill on this subject. In the House committee hearing, Prof. Graglia of the University of Texas said in his testimony, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one that makes unauthorized entry into the country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry: a grant of American citizenship.”

That's it, all right.

And the Wong Kim Ark decision is, itself, a little schizo. The decision says that Wong is a legal resident, even tho his parents, who had returned home, are said to be subjects of the Emperor of China.

I read somewhere that the Wong Kim Ark decision is the Supreme Court chastising Congress for having enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act. That's the only thing that, for me, can makes sense of a schizo decision.
******************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Originally Posted by vistalad

That's it, all right.

And the Wong Kim Ark decision is, itself, a little schizo. The decision says that Wong is a legal resident, even tho his parents, who had returned home, are said to be subjects of the Emperor of China.

I read somewhere that the Wong Kim Ark decision is the Supreme Court chastising Congress for having enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act. That's the only thing that, for me, can makes sense of a schizo decision.
******************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

It was an outrageous and totally unnecessary and unwarranted decision, so I think you're right. There was something besides the 14th Amendment on their plate with such a ruling.