People Born in the United States Are Properly Citizens (???)

Note: while I personally disagree with this article, as the purpose of this amendment was, in-fact, to pull together 3 enacted laws to grant citizenship & protect the previously known slaves. The heart of this (section 1) argument is is a fallacy, misinterpretation & misapplication of the fourteenth amendment. The heart of the Constitution grants an ordinal class of citizenship to its people. (Ref to: Citizenship)
August 26, 2015
Michael C. Dorf

ImmigrationLast week, Donald Trump released a white paper on immigration reform. It proposes, among other things, to “end birthright citizenship.” Trump himself should not be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and it should be noted that his draconian views on immigration are controversial even within the Republican primary field. 

For example, in response to Trump, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush characterized birthright citizenship as “part of our noble heritage.”
Still, Trump’s tough-on-immigration position appeals to many Republican primary voters. Moreover, as his white paper trumpets, even Democratic Senate minority leader Harry Reid once supported ending birthright citizenship. Accordingly, those of us who think that children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants are properly deemed citizens cannot simply ignore Trump’s proposal as attention-grabbing buffoonery.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
In the U.S. context, the term “birthright citizenship” refers to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” That language was added to the Constitution following the Civil War in order to overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision, which declared that African Americans could not be citizens. However, like other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, the language of the Citizenship Clause is general: by its terms, it does not apply merely to former slaves and their descendants but to “all persons born” here.

The Trump white paper does not say how Trump intends to end birthright citizenship. Some people who oppose birthright citizenship call for a constitutional amendment, but other reformers suggest that no amendment is needed. The Citizenship Clause, they note, is limited to those persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and they argue that children of undocumented immigrants do not satisfy this criterion.

As a textual matter, that claim is odd. As Professor (and Verdict columnist) Ronald Rotunda noted in a 2010 Chicago Tribune op-ed, undocumented immigrants are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of local, state, and federal government—as are their children. If they break the law, they can be prosecuted just like anybody else.

What does the Fourteenth Amendment mean when it refers to people who are born here but not subject to U.S. jurisdiction? The Supreme Court answered that question in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Riding a wave of nativist racism against East Asians that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the anti-Latino sentiments that contemporary immigration hawks sometimes express, Congress enacted and then re-enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which placed severe restrictions on the entry into the United States of Chinese persons—including, in the view of the government official who sought to exclude Wong Kim Ark, ethnic Chinese who had been born in the United States.

The Court rejected the government’s attempt to apply the Chinese Exclusion Act on the ground that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen, even though his parents remained subjects of the Emperor of China. Justice Gray’s majority opinion relied mostly on the common law and practice that formed the backdrop for the Fourteenth Amendment. That backdrop also informed the Court’s understanding of the Amendment’s express qualification: Children born in the U.S. to foreign ambassadors and consuls, or to soldiers or others accompanying invading armies had, by tradition, not been regarded as citizens, as they were not “subject to” our law. But otherwise, people present in the U.S. are subject to U.S. laws and, for that reason, most people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

Yet Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the U.S. legally when he was born. No Supreme Court case affirming the broad scope of birthright citizenship speaks to the precise question of the citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrants. And in their 1985 book Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity, Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith relied on an 1884 Supreme Court case holding that Native Americans are not entitled to birthright citizenship to question the broad language of Wong Kim Ark as applied to children of undocumented immigrants.

Thus, if immigration liberals are comforted by the apparently clear implications of the language of Wong Kim Ark, we should remember that before the Supreme Court dignified the claim that Congress lacks the power to require people to purchase health insurance, that claim too was widely dismissed as essentially foreclosed by prior precedent. We should not underestimate the ability of clever lawyers to make off-the-wall arguments sound reasonable—especially if they end up arguing before a Supreme Court that includes new Justices appointed by a future get-tough-on-immigration president.

The Virtues of Birthright Citizenship
Should the opponents of birthright citizenship fail to get what they want by persuading or packing the Supreme Court, they would need to amend the Constitution. What can we say to persuade Americans that such an amendment would be a bad idea?

The best defense of birthright citizenship echoes the position espoused by the Supreme Court in the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe. Texas tried to deny a free public education to the undocumented immigrant children living in that state. In holding that the state thereby violated the Constitution, the Court noted that the state’s approach was illogical. As Justice Powell explained in a concurrence, no one “benefits from the creation within our borders of a subclass of illiterate persons, many of whom will remain in the State.”

So too with citizenship itself. If we are not going to deport the millions of people born here to undocumented immigrants—and we are not—then there is little reason to withhold the sense of belonging and the concomitant sense of duty that go with citizenship.

Many countries, including countries generally regarded as democracies, reject birthright citizenship, treating parentage as the chief means of acquiring citizenship. As Professor Rotunda noted in his Op-Ed and as Professor Neil Buchanan discussed in his recent column on the Dominican Republic’s treatment of its ethnic Haitian minority, this approach can be ugly. Generation after generation of people who have known no other home are treated as not even second-class citizens.

By contrast, birthright citizenship implements widely shared and characteristically American values. Through the Titles of Nobility Clauses of Article I, Sections 9 and 10, the Constitution abjures eighteenth-century European notions of privilege obtained by birth. Meanwhile, Article III, Section 3 forbids the “Corruption of Blood”—the old practice of disinheriting the heirs of persons convicted of treason or other serious crimes. Together, these provisions reject the proposition that in America the sins of the fathers (or mothers) can be visited on the sons (or daughters).

That notion also informed the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler. “Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children,” Justice Brennan wrote for the majority, “legislation directing the onus of a parent’s misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.”
No doubt the American commitment to disregarding accidents of birth has always been under-inclusive, originally grossly so. After all, the original Constitution co-existed with race-based chattel slavery, and we still face the consequences of our collective failure to fully remedy that historic wrong.

But the Fourteenth Amendment—including its Citizenship Clause—was a huge step in the right direction. Curtailing its promise of birthright citizenship would thus be a huge step backward.

Advertisements

The Sad Facts People Forget, Because They Don’t Pay Attention To History

Sunday, 12 October 2014

IRISH – ‘THE FORGOTTEN WHITE SLAVES’

IMG_2373.JPG
Rebecca Harvey’s photo.

IRISH – ‘THE FORGOTTEN WHITE SLAVES’ claims expert The Irish slave trade began when the Proclamation of 1625 James II required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70 percent of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.” “Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants and the majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.”

“During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.”

Martin goes on to explain that for some reason, the Irish slaves are often remembered as ‘indentured servants.’ However, in most cases during the 17th and 18th centuries, they were no more than “human cattle.”
“…the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.”
During the late 1600s, writes Martin, African slaves were far more expensive than their Irish counterparts – Africans would sell for around 50 sterling while Irish were often no more than 5 sterling.

The Irish were further exploited when the British began to “breed” Irish women – or girls, sometimes as young as 12 – with African males.
“These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of breeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

One Pissed Off Veteran Vs. Dozens of Cops

Original Article

“There is no honor in hurting unarmed people! How do you sleep at night”
The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist. May 31, 2014

Sgt. Shamar Thomas served in the US Marine Corps in Iraq. Upon his return to his hometown of New York City, he witnessed the police state that had been growing up around him.

The occupy movement helped to gain worldwide exposure of what the police have evolved to in the US.

As a veteran of the USMC myself, I know the effectiveness of veterans speaking out against, not only the police state, but the warfare state in general.

Perhaps that is why veterans are so often the target of the state’s violence. The credibility of someone speaking out against the very system they were once a part of, can move mountains; which happens to pose a large threat to the powers that be.

If you have been silent in the face of this rising police state, we encourage you to speak out against it, not only veterans , but all free thinking individuals. Use your voice now before you no longer have one.

Hopefully, now that nearly 3 years have passed, Thomas has opened his eyes to the global industrial war machine as well.

More Sgt. Shamar Thomas videos:

A History of Hypocrisy…

In my series concerning the 14th Amendment and the Dredd Scott case ( Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, & Part 5) we discussed a number of issues concerning slavery, who a slave was, who the 14th Amendment applied to, how it was conceived, and to what purpose it would serve.  I attempted to leave behind any and all thoughts of rightness or wrongness of slavery itself.  However, in this piece I intend to touch base on how wrong slavery is, and was.

 

 

One of the greatest Libertarian minds that our Founding Fathers rested on was that of John Locke.  In his book “The Second Treatise of Civil Government,” this was written in 1690, he stated outright the following:  “THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”  This is a strong indication that his thoughts on freedom were for ALL men and left little to no room for debate on the issue of slavery.  Furthermore, those famous words of Thomas Jefferson within the confines of that famous document the Declaration of Independence were, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  These are very strong sentiments of a man, or of men, concerning the rights of man.

Unfortunately, those who owned slaves considered slaves as property, or chattel, much like cattle or real estate.  Throughout the Dredd Scott case it was understood and explained that slaves were not part of “We the People” in the sense that they were people, but as property.  They, slaves, were considered “persons” (US Constitution, Article IV, section 2) in the legal sense of the word; which meant “In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.” Also, a corporation is a “person” for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.  In the US Constitution, Article I, section 2 slaves were classified as “all other Persons” and were valued at 3/5 of a person for purposes of taxation and representation.  Another of the great depravities of slavery was the fact the wealthy did not want to pay to get their crops harvested; most of them felt it an unnecessary hindrance to their wealth to house and feed those who did the work.

Now, I personally do not believe in slavery; however, had I been brought up in the south with slaves as part of my culture I may think differently on the matter.  The bible mentions slavery in several instances.  It has been customary throughout history to enslave those peoples who were conquered.

For a moment let us consider the dissenting opinions of the Justices on the Dredd Scott case, Justices Curtis and McLean.

In his dissent, Justice Curtis rightly stated, “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects-those born out of his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not exist in England, but it did in the British colonies. Slaves were not in legal parlance persons, but property. The moment the incapacity, the disqualification of slavery, was removed, they became persons, and were then either British subjects, or not British subjects, according as they were or were not born within the allegiance of the British King. Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the laws of North Carolina than was consequent on the transition from a colony dependent on a European King, to a free and sovereign State. Slaves remained slaves. British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen. Foreigners, until made members of the State, remained aliens. Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.” (DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 1856)

William Lloyd Garrison stated it quite well in this sentiment, “The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body ’ — to the products of his own labor — to the protection of law — and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely, the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African.” (Garrison, 1833)

According to William Ellery Channing, two years later, “The very idea of a slave is, that he belongs to another, that he is bound to live and labor for another, to be another’s instrument, and to make another’s will his habitual law, however adverse to his own. Another owns him, and, of course, has a right to his time and strength, a right to the fruits of his labor, a right to task him without his consent, and to determine the kind and duration of his toil, a right to confine him to any bounds, a right to extort the required work by stripes, a right, in a word, to use him as a tool, without contract, against his will, and in denial of his right to dispose of himself, or to use his power for his own good. “A slave,” says the Louisiana code, “is in the power of the master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything, but which must belong to his master.” “Slaves shall be deemed, taken, reputed, and adjudged,” say the South-Carolina laws, “to be chattels personal in the hands of their masters, and possessions to all intents and purposes whatsoever.” Such is slavery, a claim to man as property.”  In his assertions a human being cannot be justly owned, with which I truly concur. (Channing, 1835)

Even in the Dredd Scott case in the dissenting vote were several references to the laws of the states and territories.  Once the “slave” was brought in to the territory, such as Wisconsin, the US Laws (as opposed to states laws) ruled.  All new territories and states under US Laws and under the Constitution, in order to become a state, slavery was not to be recognized.  In fact, in Justice Curtis’ dissent, the Missouri Compromise was mentioned where this was part of the compromise to become a state, which rendered any and all state laws recognizing slavery as null and void.  Justice Curtis also mentions the language of the Constitution where it discussed “natural born citizen”, continuing on with the fact that citizenship is granted at birth (US Constitution, Article II, section 1)

How could this subject be complete without some reference to the bible?  The bible does mention slavery and slaves; however, for the most part, it deals with the subjugation of a conquered people.  References are made to slaves that they should essentially be happy and do their due diligence to the best of their abilities.  The problem being is that God gave each and every man (women included) freewill, which grants us each the ability to do as we please provided we do not hinder the rights and liberties of another.  And since these rights are granted to us by our creator, no one can abrogate, abridge, or take them from us.  However, if we do not fight for our rights, who will fight for us?  Your rights are precious, all of them!  We must be willing to fight for each and every one of them, regardless of the consequences.

I hope this was of interest to you, please let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Works Cited

Channing, W. E. (1835). A Human Being Cannot Be Justly Owned. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from The Libertarian Library: http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/human-being-cannot-be-justly-owned

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. Supreme Court December 1856).

Garrison, W. L. (1833, December 13). Man Cannot Hold Property in Man. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from The Libertarian Library: http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/man-cannot-hold-property-man

John Locke-Slavery. (2007, October 28). Retrieved October 1, 2012, from Study Mode: http://www.studymode.com/essays/John-Locke-Slavery-123778.html

Locke, J. (1690). The Second Treatise of Civil Government. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from Constitution.org: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Madison, J. (1787, September 17). U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of the United States .