WhatFinger

Boston Marathon Bomber took his oath for citizenship just last year, during a time when he was arguably already intending to harm America

Holding Holder Accountable


By —— Bio and Archives--April 30, 2013

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund last week, declared that citizenship in the United States is a “civil right.”

.

“Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.”

By using the term “civil right,” he cloaks the invasion of the United States by hordes of aliens with the moral façade of the 1960’s “Civil Rights” era.  But there is a difference between treating all Americans equally regardless of race, and making citizenship in our nation a right equally accessible to all humans, regardless of birthright.

Many Americans felt a chill of fear when they learned of Holder’s speech to the Mexican group.  This refuge that we know as our homeland is defined by the borders we built to separate ourselves from a world that thinks differently than we do about many things.  And, when Holder asserts that citizenship itself is not something that we existing citizens can control and limit, one of the walls that protect us is being torn down.

How do we show that Holder’s claim is not only logically absurd, but is wrong as a matter of law?  After all, Holder’s job is to be the chief advocate of our laws.  He should have mastered his art, and he must wield his power in a way that defends us.  How should he properly structure the case regarding citizenship?

As in all fundamental law in the United States, the analysis must start with the Constitution.  But, in this case, that analysis must start farther back than the words in the Constitution.  We must look at the nature of the Constitution; we must understand what a Constitution is.

Our founders knew just what a Constitution is:

A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government… – Thomas Paine, Rights of Man [1791-1792]

The Constitution of the United States is a legal contract.  In this particular contract, the parties agreed to create a unified governing body, to merge some of the functions of the states that were operating semi-independently in the first years of our Independence.

As in any contract, to understand its purpose, scope and legitimacy, we have to look at several elements.  First of all, we have to look at who the parties to the contract were.  A contract is only effective, or binding, among those who agreed to it.  How do we discover who the parties to the Constitution of the United States were? 

We look at the Constitution, and it tells us, right off the bat, that the parties to this contract are:

“We, the People of the United States of America…”

This declares that the authority to construct the new government comes from the people of the several states.  This is not the states themselves, from their legislative bodies, but the people of each state, agreeing in conventions to the contract.

Next, we look for any terms in the contract that tell us for whose benefit this Constitution was written.  This, too, is plainly set forth in the Preface:

“..., in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

All the benefits to be accomplished by establishing this Constitution are intended, from the beginning, solely and exclusively, for the People who agreed to it, and their children for all generations thereafter.

The Constitution, as a contract, created an organization that we know as the federal government.  The only persons who have any right to guide what they created through this contract are the People - state-by-state - who agreed to it.  By affirming in their Preface that the parties and the beneficiaries are the People of the United States, they expressly reject the assertion that people from outside these states have any right to access our federal government except by terms We, the People, agreed to put in the contract.

So, how does the Constitution provide avenues for foreigners to interact with the new nation?

Under the powers of Congress, there are provisions for commerce with foreign nations, for laws that apply to the international territory of the seas, for ratifying treaties that the President may negotiate with foreign powers.  The President also has the power to set up relations with foreign nations through ambassadors.  If relations become hostile, he has the power, if declared by Congress, to wage war. When foreigners want to interact with the United Stated, these laws are the rules we set for them to follow.

The commerce power includes setting rules for alien travelers to our land.  This means that the persons who were elected to represent the citizens of the United States have the power to open, guide, limit or block travel by aliens within our borders.  Congress’ power to legislate in this capacity is the power to make certain things acceptable, and other things punishable, and this is done in the name of the People of the United States.

It is accepted that children born within our borders of parents who are citizens are themselves citizens at birth.  (Note that the 14th Amendment has affirmed this right, but the Supreme Court has ignored the stipulation that birth only confers citizenship if the birth is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which means the parents are not subjects of some other jurisdiction – such as their native nation.  If the parents can seek refuge in an embassy of their nation, they are not exclusively “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.  Those of us who are born of United States citizens are “natural born citizens.”  No one else is.)

So, is there another way to access citizenship in the United States, and, if so, how does that path conform to Holder’s assertion?

Well, the only other path to citizenship, then and now, is “naturalization.”  This means going through a legal process defined by our laws.  Before the Constitution, the individual states set their own rules for immigrants to become citizens of their state.  Citizenship conferred certain benefits, but it required a commitment to loyalty, obedience to the law, and other obligations.  Since the new nation would be accepting immigrants, and the highest law would now be the Constitution, it was agreed to withdraw from the states the power to confer citizenship, and unite it under rules to be set up by Congress.

That law, in its modern form, is the rule set by we, the People, through our representatives, for becoming a citizen. 

This law does not confer a worldwide right to join those of us who live under the agreement we embody in our Constitution.  It does not confer a right to live in our midst except by rules that we set.  It does not confer a right to “emerge from the shadows” of illegal entry, any more than a shoplifter has a right to “emerge from the shadows” and declare his possession of the goods he steals.

When apologists for the illegals use the term “undocumented,” they are trying to obscure the fact that the entry of each of those aliens into the United States was an overt and uncompromising rejection of our laws.  Each alien who entered outside a legitimate border crossing, or who overstayed their expressly limited visa, knew they were violating United States law under our Constitution, and blatantly chose to commit that violation.  It is not a matter of lacking some document – they chose to make their own rules, and trash the rules that we Americans made for them to obey in order to enter our country.  They have chosen to steal the benefits we created four ourselves and our posterity, rather than earn the right to share these benefits by obeying our rules.

The right to be an American citizen is a contractual right, not a “human right.”  It is limited by the terms of the contract – the rules for naturalization.  Attorney General Holder, as our chief law enforcement officer, should know that.

He evidently does not.

The “naturalization” process our laws have established includes, as the final step, the taking of the oath of loyalty to our nation and to our Constitution.

This oath includes the assertion that the promise of loyalty is made without reservation or limitations.

If a person making that oath has any reservation, the oath becomes an act of perjury.

But each illegal alien’s very entry into our country was an expression of opposition to the rules we made under the authority of our Constitution.  How can we take their oath seriously to honor and obey the Constitution, when their first act here was to reject laws made under its authority?

One more detail:  The surviving Boston Marathon Bomber took his oath for citizenship just last year, during a time when he was arguably already intending to harm America.  This would suggest that his oath was fraudulent, and that he is not a citizen.  He acted, in his violence against Americans, as an enemy, not as a citizen.

What will Holder do about that?


CFPSubcribe

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Hal Rounds -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Hal Rounds is a resident of Tennessee.  Born in California, his undergraduate degree was in Economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara.  He is an Air Force veteran of the Viet Nam war, working with munitions including rockets, bombs and, later,  nuclear weapons.  During a career in air express he attended law school and entered practice.  He is presently a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, and the Supreme Court of the United States.


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: