Thread: Arellano, Anchor Babies and American Wall Street Investors..

Not all of Wall Street thinks like the WSJ or Bush...
=====================================
The Born Identity
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Rights: Elvira Arellano, poster child for illegal alien parents of U.S. citizens, has been deported back to Mexico. True immigration reform would end the ultimate incentive to illegal immigration — birthright citizenship.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed after the Civil War to ensure the full rights of citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants. Of late, it has been abused and misinterpreted to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including those who have the good fortune to have their mother slip past the U.S. Border Patrol.

When Arellano took refuge in a Chicago church to avoid her second deportation for crimes committed on American soil, she had with her son Saul, 8 years old and an American citizen. But should he be?

Such children, called "anchor babies," are used by illegal aliens and their activist supporters to fight the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. We're told it's morally wrong to tear families apart. But such families were and can be united in their countries of origin. Prisoners are separated from their families. Do we stop enforcing the laws they broke, too?

HR 1940 was introduced in April by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., to restore and clarify the original intent of the 14th Amendment. It would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. of parents who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law dean and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that the prevailing interpretation gives too much weight to place of birth than originally intended and should be changed.

Eastman argued: "Birth, together with being a person subject to the complete and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States (i.e. not owing allegiance to another sovereign) was the constitutional mandate." Indeed, the 14th Amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and (italics added) subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

But, Eastman's argument goes, illegal aliens from Mexico are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation. Therefore, their children born on American soil should not automatically be U.S. citizens.

In a debate on the 14th Amendment during the Reconstruction, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added the jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. If citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship if they already had it?

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge and costly mistake. Anchor babies? Anchors away.

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution
by Edward Erler

The following is an entry concerning the first section of Amendment 14 of the Constitution as found in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.


Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.â€

Citizenship Reform Act of 2005

Died in the House!

The proposed Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 69 was a bill which, if enacted into law, would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to apply only to a child born in the United States who: (1) was born in wedlock to a parent either of whom is a U.S. citizen or national, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintains such residence; or (2) was born out of wedlock to a mother who is a U.S. citizen or national, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintains such residence. The bill would have accomplished this objective by defining children not falling into the above categories as not being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus not entitled to automatic citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment.

H.R. 698 was introduced in early 2005, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, but saw no subsequent action and died when the 109th Congress adjourned sine die on December 9, 2006. Similar bills had been introduced in at least three previous Congresses — H.R. 1567 in the 108th Congress, H.R. 190 in the 107th Congress, and H.R. 319 in the 106th Congress — but, just like H.R. 698, all of them died without having been voted upon when Congress adjourned.

Whether a bill such as the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 would manage to accomplish its intended purpose, even if it were to be enacted into law by Congress, is unclear. In a 1982 case, Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that illegal immigrants to the United States might not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. If a future Supreme Court were to rule similarly to the Plyler court, this would likely mean that the sort of change envisioned by the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 could be accomplished only via an amendment to the Constitution.

Very Long................

http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthr ... fable.html

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance


Updated 4/6/07

Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they are black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognize the principle that I assert. --John A. Bingham (14th amendment co-author, January 20, 1862)


Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull said of the above: "My own opinion is that all these persons born in the United States and under its authority, owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens without any act of congress." Can an illegal alien be said to owe the United States allegiance? Can an alien be said not to owe some other country his/her allegiance without evidence?

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

The opinion of US Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862 said: "The Constitution does not make the citizen, it is in fact made by them." If so, how then does a alien make a citizen of the United States?

America's common law rule as found highlighted in George Paschal's highly influential Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together."

Speaking of aliens, Paschal further adds: "To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power." In other words, Congress cannot use the power of establishing rules of naturalization to grant citizenship to domestic children born to aliens.

It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.

Notice Howard did not say virtue of "common law," but virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father.

And why is Howard singling out persons who are foreigners and aliens, and also persons who belong to "families of ambassadors" or "foreign ministers"? As we will soon see by further comments of Howard, only those who enjoy the same jurisdiction as citizens of the United States are the class of persons for whom he is speaking.

Furthermore, what was this law of the land already Howard speaks of? "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power" are citizens of the United States. So what Howard is making clear here is the simple fact his citizenship clause is no different then the law of the land already which demanded allegiance to the United States by at least the child's father before that child could be considered a U.S. born citizen. This alone makes liberal construction to the contrary impossible.

When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation in owing the country any allegiance.

The only recognized means for non-Americans to come under US jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship under the US Constitution is through the process of naturalization, which among other things requires an oath of allegiance to the United States. Sen. Reverdy Johnson said as much when debating the citizenship clause in the Senate: "And I know no mode by which an alien can become a citizen of the United States except under the naturalization laws of the United States."

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Anyone familiar with the rule of jus soli under common law will instantly recognize that Howard does not intend to recognize it under National law, and instead, demands the same jurisdiction that applies to American citizens. Under this interpretation, the language well could had read "all persons born to American citizens."

Moreover, United States Revised Statute 1992 [1886] is completely incompatible with the rule of jus soli: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.â€

Originally Posted by mdillon1172

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge and costly mistake.

This misinterpretation is not a mistake, iit is intentionally perpetuated by our corrupt politicians in order to advance their own special intrests, in some cases this intrest is the North American Union.