Emotions have their place. I have my sensitivities. As a good and moral country, we are very emotional about doing the right thing, and that is good when those emotions accompany rational thinking, and reasonable policies that remain within the realm of common sense, and the law.
Last Thursday night I made members of my Constitution Class angry when I tried to prove a point on how easily one can allow emotions to cloud one's judgment.
After discussing the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution it does not mean the federal government can stomp all over it (they are your rights, so protect them!); and the Tenth Amendment, which indicates that authorities not expressly granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the States, are State powers, we began to talk a little bit about citizenship. The questions that arise over citizenship reveals that often people get the rules for citizenship, and natural born citizenship, confused. Citizenship centers largely around allegiance, and Natural Born Citizenship, in addition to using the importance of allegiance, adds the inheritance of citizenship by the parents (father in early times) to the whole mix.
The discussion turned to illegal aliens. The argument that many constitutionalists make regarding anchor babies is that the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment clearly defines as citizenship relying on the child, when born, being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
In today's language, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" has come to mean primarily "the territory in which authority may be exercised." Therefore, when reading the citizenship clause, people assume that since the children of illegal aliens born on American Soil were born within the borders, or on the territory, of this nation, they are automatically American Citizens.
When studying the Congressional Records, the debates, and statements by the two primary authors of the 14th Amendment (Senators Howard and Trumbull), we find that the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" meant something entirely different. The writers of the clause meant it to mean "not subject to any foreign power."
A woman in the class began to become concerned about her own citizenship. She stated that her father was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and her Grandfather was born in Bermuda. Both became residents of the United States, and her father claimed to be an American citizen, but the true records were hard to come by. After a series of questions, however, which established that at her birth her parents were loyal to the United States, along with the fact that her mother was a citizen at the time of her birth, and assuming her grandfather came legally to the United States, we determined she most probably has nothing to worry about.
Then I launched into what I called "gray area."
During the early half of the twentieth century, migrant workers commonly crossed the border, worked in agriculture, received their paychecks, and saved the money for the purpose of using it to bring their families legally to the United States. Though the migrant workers illegally crossed the border to work the fields, they also were polite, abiding by the other American laws, and were doing it for the purpose of legally coming to the United States with their families. Today's illegal alien is different. They often do not follow our laws, and quite often come to this country with their hand out expecting free healthcare, welfare privileges, and exhibit little or no respect for American society or culture.
But what about those few that do? What about those few children who, by no fault of their own, were brought to this country illegally, grew up here, attended our schools, have a full allegiance to our country, and consider themselves subject to no other foreign power? Would it not seem reasonable to give them a pathway to remain members of our society?
One participant in my Constitution Class said, "Doug, this is not you. I can't believe what I am hearing."
I continued. "This is a good and moral country, so shouldn't we try to be fair to those that do desire a life in America, and are willing to be loyal to this nation?"
The grumbling got louder.
My attempt to get these folks to look at the issue from an emotional point of view wasn't working. They were set in what they believed, and were unwilling to twist and bend the law for the sake of emotions.
I then threw in Mitt Romney's words to a Latino group earlier this week.
"Do you really agree with Romney that we should staple green cards to diplomas?"
I responded, "Isn't that what The Left says we should do? Shouldn't we feel bad for these people and do the right thing?"
Reality, unfortunately, makes it impossible to do such a thing. As much as we may emotionally desire to show compassion, how can you guarantee that only those with full allegiance to the United States would receive the opportunity? What about the law? By doing such a thing would we not be condoning the breaking of American Law? And with the border remaining as porous as it is, would that not be an invitation to more people wanting to cross the border in the hopes of taking advantage of such a program?
The answer lies in securing the border, and enforcing current laws. If employers are required to use E-Verify to ensure their workers can work legally in the United States, and if law enforcement are allowed to verify legal residency as in the case of the Arizona immigration law, what will happen is what we are seeing in the States that are actively enforcing immigration law - the illegal aliens will deport themselves.
As for those kids that were raised as Americans, but technically are not, there may be an answer in the future regarding them, which will mostly likely need for them to exit the country and then re-enter legally through the immigration system.
As a good and moral country, the emotional answer is not the best answer. As a good and moral people it is our responsibility to follow the laws we have in place as a nation. It is not in our best interest to ignore our laws, twist our laws, or for our President to bypass the Law of the Land and Congress to accomplish amnesty through an unconstitutional executive order. It's just not the right thing to do.
--
Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Exclusive: Are Children Born of Illegal Immigrants US Citizens? -
Family Security Matters
Myth #13: Anchor Babies are American Citizens -
Political Pistachio
Anchor Babies and the 14th Amendment -
Political Pistachio
Obama's Amnesty by fiat - naked lawlessness -
Washington Post
Obama's Executive Order Amnesty is a Useless Political Ploy -
The Hayride
Obama Administration to Stop Deporting Some Young Illegal Immigrants -
CNN
Dream Act: Obama Passes Amnesty by Executive Order -
Tea Party Tribune
Romney's Promises to Ease the Path to a Green Card -
US News and World Report
