By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… A debate has broken out over the Fourteenth Amendment. Those very people who will fight and die over the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment are now trying to say the Fourteenth Amendment does not say what it says. They believe that the court should interpret the amendment in the context of post Civil War America. They will argue that those who championed the cause of protecting an ex-slaves’ right to citizenship never meant this protection to extend to modern day immigrants. There may be some merit to this view since it is unlikely that in 1866, anyone could visualize the problems illegal immigration might bring in the twenty-first century.
The Fourteenth Amendment states, “…All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” One must remember that in 1868 there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
This portion of the Fourteenth Amendment was a direct reaction to the post war attempt by southern Democrats to disenfranchise the newly freed slaves. The Republicans championed the inclusion of this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. Now in a reversal of party stands, the radical Republicans are challenging the citizenship of those born in America to illegal immigrant parents.
Republicans are arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes those who are here illegally. They are subjects of their native country and therefore do not have complete allegiance to the United States and child follows the parents status. While foreign diplomats, U.N. representatives and their families are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, this immunity does not apply to those in the country illegally.
This subjection to the jurisdiction of the state and federal government does not require a personal commitment to the jurisdiction. Jurisdiction comes from the fact that they are now living in the United States. Whether a person in the United States accepts the fact that the United States has jurisdiction over them or not, the jurisdiction still exists. Jurisdiction is not dependent on the acceptance of the individual.
This reminds me of the bumper sticker, “God said it, I believe it. That settles it.” If you are truly one of God’s people, you know it should read, “God said it. That settles it.” The rules of God are not dependent on the belief of the follower; the follower is subject to God’s jurisdiction. If you don’t believe in God, forget that last thought.
The country decides jurisdiction, not the person. If indeed those who would deport the illegal want to argue the illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then there is no argument for enforcing American immigration laws against that person. A law enforcement agent cannot enforce a law against a person they have no jurisdiction over.
There is no question that this provision of the Constitution causes all kinds of problems when one begins to ponder the issue. While the child is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State, the parents are criminals who have no right to remain in the United States. The government has every right to deport the parent, but it has no right to deport the child.
If the government was to enforce the law of the land the family would have to decide, do we leave the child with legal relatives, or do we take them home with us until they are old enough to return on their own. As heartless as it may sound, it is the law of the land. Either enforce the law or change it.
While a Constitutional change is a long and drawn out process, the changing of a law is not. This country is suffering from leaders who refuse to enforce the laws of the land. This leads to a population who believes that society can pick and choose what laws to obey.
There are those who believe eleven million people cannot be rounded up and deported; therefore, the law should be ignored. I would contend the round up is not the problem. The problem for those who advocate the immediate round up and deportation of illegal aliens comes from another part of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the end of section 1, it is stated “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
Notice this does not say any citizen, it says any person. The real challenge of deporting eleven million illegal aliens is not identifying who they are and rounding them up, it is in a proper legal deportation process that provides equal protection under the law.
The equal protection provision has led to a number of strange phenomena. While an Ohio parent was jailed for fraud for enrolling her child in a school in a district where she was not a resident, the federal government requires the CCSD to perpetrate a fraud on the State of Nevada to the tune of $30,000,000 a year to educate 30,000 illegal alien, therefore non-resident, children. The federal government bases this requirement on the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
When the defenders of “birthright citizenship” state this issue has been settled by the Supreme Court, they are wrong. In actuality, the Supreme Court has not dealt with the issue at all.
The two Supreme Court cases cited in defense of “birthright citizenship” have absolutely nothing to do with illegal aliens. Wong Kim Ark case (1898) was about the citizenship of a Chinese man whose parents were in the country legally when Wong Kim was born. The other case is Elk v. Wilkins (1884). A native American was ruled a “non-citizen” because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and complete allegiance.” What a strange country. A child of Chinese immigrants was deemed a citizen. The child of a Native America was not. Those who would deny “birthright citizenship” want to hang their hats on these Supreme Court decisions?
Thought of the week…“A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in. And how many want out.”
― Tony Blair
