Category: Immigration

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Robert Kuttner, in a piece entitled Supreme Contempt for the Constitution, writes,

The Supreme Court issued a shocking ruling today, making it easier for President Donald Trump to overturn birthright citizenship. The way the Court did it was in keeping with its disingenuous strategy of using technicalities that allow it to duck the underlying question.

The substance of Friday’s 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, involved a challenge to Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. His order violated the 14th Amendment, which clearly holds that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of the circumstances.

This Kuttner is obviously a leftist ideologue. 14A does not "clearly hold" what Kuttner says it "clearly holds." Section 1 begins:

14A. 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.

The meaning of the amendment depends on how the clause I have set in italics is interpreted. Such interpretation is the office of SCOTUS the function of which is neither legislative nor executive. Its function is judicial.  Here is how  Stephen Miller and others read 14A.:

Let's talk about birthright citizenship. After the Civil War, Congress and America came together to ensure freedom for the children of slaves, not the children of illegal aliens . . . .

If you go to the UN today, the United Nations, [which is located in New York City] you have diplomats from all over the world. None of their babies become automatic American citizens. Why? 

Because they're [the diplomats are] subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country. Their allegiance is to a foreign country. Their citizenship is to a foreign country.

Illegal aliens are no different, in fact, worse, because illegal aliens are expressly forbidden from even being on our soil. Their allegiance is to a foreign land. They're under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.

Their children are not U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court has now cleared the way for us to restore the actual meaning of the United States Constitution and the idea that this special privilege does not belong to illegal aliens and their children. 

The interpretation of 14A depends on  who the referents are of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Miller quite naturally takes the referents to be the parents of the illegal aliens.   Thus Miller et al. take 14A to be expressing the more explicit:

14A*. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and WHOSE PARENTS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

On this reading birthright citizenship is ruled out. The actual formulation in the Constitution, however, is 14A.  The trouble is that  the actual formulation allows the following reading:

14A**. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, whether or not their parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

14A** is ruled out by the points Miller makes, one of them being that the children of foreign diplomats born to these diplomats while they are in the USA do not automatically become U.S. citizens.

I have made two main points. The first is that Kuttner is either bullshitting or lying when he claims that the meaning of 14A in its actual formulation in the Constitution is transparently clear. No, it NOT clear.

Second, and more importantly, the most plausible reading, is 14A* above, and NOT Kuttner's perverse hate-America leftist reading.

Dems and Deportation

Democrats upset over deportations ought to look in the mirror. Prior to Biden-Harris they did little to secure the nation's borders, and by supporting Biden-Harris they embraced the  destructive open-border policy of that administration. That nations need enforceable and enforced borders not merely to flourish, but to continue to exist, is well-nigh self-evident.  Those in a nation who blind themselves to this self-evidence are reasonably viewed as wanting the destruction of the nation they are in.

Promotion of illegal immigration being the Democrats' greatest crime, Donald J. Trump's securing of the border is his greatest achievement so far, as is recognized by most of the populace.  But the Biden-Harris mess will be with us for a long time to come.  Deportation of illegal aliens must proceed if the rule of law is to be upheld.  There will inevitably be mistakes and injustices. The law must be enforced, but the enforcers are finite and fallible, and a small minority of them are as bad as the criminals they are charged with protecting us against. This obvious point I am making will be resisted by those with an authoritarian personality structure, but leftists, who tend toward the opposite extreme, that of the rebellious protester who reflexively takes the side of criminals and underdogs, regardless of their criminality, ought readily to accept it.

There are bad cops. We all know this. You do not have to be a member of a minority to have experienced bad behavior from law enforcement agents. Give a man a gun, a badge, and a uniform and it may go to his head. It's not that power corrupts; the problem is that we are all more or less morally corrupt inherently so that any power we acquire is subject to misuse.  

So I say to Democrats, you have brought about this situation by your support of perverse and deleterious policies. Blame yourself first for any excesses. 

Birthright Citizenship

An important article. Mercifully brief. Double hat tip: Mark Levin, Tony Flood. Do your bit and propagate it.

The crucial phrase: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." 

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

NGO Pope Commits ‘Ecclesiastical Suicide’

Rod Dreher:

Elsewhere in the epistle, Francis implicitly condemns Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, for misunderstanding the Church’s teaching on ordo amoris—the order of love. Vance, a convert who was catechized by two of the most intelligent Dominican priests in America (I introduced him personally to his first teacher), had defended the administration’s tough migration policy by referring to St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching that the order of love requires us to love those closest to us first—not exclusively, but primarily, as God has given us the duty to care for them.

It turns out that JD Vance really is more Catholic than the pope. The Catechism teaches that the moral duty towards foreign refugees must be balanced by duties to the common good of the people within one’s own country. Yes, wealthy countries do have a moral responsibility to be generous in welcoming distressed foreigners, but they have the right to set limits on migration, and to refuse it when they judge that it harms the common good. The official Catholic teaching balances charity with common sense. 

JD Vance understands that; Pope Francis does not. The pope, in his teaching, has sanctified open borders—even, as in Europe, when those ungated frontiers allow the migration into the Christian lands of Europe of millions of Muslims who at minimum do not share the ancestral faith of Europeans, and no small number of whom are militantly hostile to it. If Francis had lived in the time of Pius V, Europe would be Islamic today. 

Is Illegal Immigration a Crime?

Over at the Stack.

It is. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats lied to us about this. Illegal immigrants are subject to criminal penalties. While improper entry is a crime, unlawful presence is not a crime. One can be unlawfully present in the U. S. without having entered improperly, and thus without having committed a crime.

Read it all.  Very short.

Enforcement of Borders is neither ‘Draconian’ nor ‘Xenophobic’

I just heard a Democrat politician refer to the The Trump-Homan border crackdown as 'draconian' and 'xenophobic.' It is neither.

It is not cruel or severe. Although you may think that 'severe' is  etymologically related to 'sever,' it is not. To witness a penology that includes beheading and limb amputation you will have to take a trip to the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia are go-to locales for draconian punishments. If there are any draconian punishments in the USA at the present time, they are inflicted by leftists. J-6 trespassers and abortion protesters are good examples of inflictees. 

As for 'xenophobic,' it it is the adjectival form of 'xenophobia.'  Now a phobia is an irrational fear.  But we who stand for the rule of law, have no irrational fear of foreigners or of things foreign.  If we did, why would we freely travel abroad and indeed freely live for extended periods in foreign lands? ('Freely' as opposed to 'by military order.') I myself have lived two and a half years abroad: six months in Salzburg, Austria, a year in Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, and a year in Ankara, Turkey, and I have intensively studied the native languages, cultures, religions, and histories of these countries.

What's more, I entered legally, did not overstay my visa, obeyed the local laws, ate their food, observed their customs, and dressed appropriately. I did not, for example, walk around Turkey Arizona-style in short pants. I showed respect for Muslim ways. I entered legally in the way my ancestors entered the USA, legally. And like them, I studied the native languages and did my best to assimilate.  

You can always count on a leftist to misuse language. Language abuse is as it were inscribed into their DNA.  Show me a leftist and I'll show you a linguistic hijacker.  The scumbaggery of our subversive political enemies has many sources, but the mother of them all, and the mother of all subversion,  straight from the pit of hell and the Father of Lies, is the subversion of language.

Integration, Free Association, Open Immigration

An addendum to The Integrationist Fantasy.

Forced integration violates the right to free association. To add to both the irony and the outrage, the integrators refuse to integrate with the integrated.

Open immigration is not only in open defiance of the rule of law, it also leads to a particularly offensive form of forced integration, as when illegal aliens are shipped to various locales to the detriment of the citizens who live there, citizens who lack the political clout to prevent the invasion.

It is no surprise why Trump garnered such strong support from the the black, Hispanic, and working class demographics.

Hats Off to Huntington Beach, California

It was the summer of '65. I was lying in the sand at Huntington Beach, California listening to the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, sing about hot rods, surfing, boy-girl relations and such when a song came on that "blew my mind" in the parlance of the day. But what I want to say, today, is that the city so-named 

. . . voted to approve the initiative brought by Mayor Pat Burns to Declare the City of Huntington Beach a “Non-Sanctuary City for Illegal Immigration for the Prevention of Crime.” As the City Council Members commented, the intent of this Resolution is to deliberately sidestep the Governor’s efforts to subvert the good work of federal immigration authorities and to announce the City’s cooperation with the federal government, the Trump Administration, and Border Czar Tom Homan’s work. This new City policy and Declaration are common sense, supports our law enforcement, and advances public safety throughout the City. What the Governor is doing does not.

Read it all. (HT: Fellow native-Californian, Ingvarius Maximus of Alhambra)

The Integrationist Fantasy

Top o' the Stack.

E pluribus unum? Out of many, one? It can work, and it did work for a time, though not perfectly. But thanks to ‘progressives,’ regression has set in. Whether a One can be made of Many depends on the nature of the Many.

A viable One cannot be made out of just any Many.

To think otherwise is to succumb to what I call the Integrationist Fantasy. This is the dangerous conceit that people can be brought together peacefully and productively despite deep differences in their languages, religions, cultures, traditions, and values.

Read it all; it's short: your Twitterized (X'ed out?) brain will be able to process it.

Defensive Gun Use Without a Shot Fired

Texas man defends family from machete-wielding home invader with his 9mm semi-auto.

A quartet of questions.

How would you repel a home invasion?

Would you vote for a political party they leaders of which intend to violate your right to self-defense?

Would you lay money on the proposition that the miscreant depicted in the article is an illegal alien?

Is it wise to vote for a party that stands for open borders?

Related:  An Abuse of Language: 'Gun Buy-Back'

Michael Anton on “Celebration Parallax”

Here:

More tellingly, this charge is an example of something I call the “celebration parallax,” which is explained here. In brief, the celebration parallax holds that the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it and, crucially, the perceived intent of the speaker.

So if someone says that the U.S. is experiencing levels of immigration that are unprecedented in human history, if it’s presumed or suspected that he might have doubts, then he is an evil racist. But when Bill Clinton or Joe Biden makes exactly the same point, well, that is A-OK! Because they are “good guys” who welcome “an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop” (Joe Biden’s words). By the way, I leave to readers to intuit the difference between “unrelenting” (Joe’s word) and “ceaseless” (my word) and the reasons why the former is A-OK but the latter is somehow “racist.”

The Intifada Comes to America

Well, what did you expect?

Intifada refers specifically to two separate uprisings of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank over the past four decades, but more broadly, it pertains to the continued resistance of the Palestinians to the existence of Israel. When they shout “Death to Israel,” they mean it. It should be a top priority of Congress now to determine whether they mean it when they shout “Death to America.”

The rise of pro-Palestinian hatred in the United States should not be a surprising development to anyone. Even before President Biden opened the southern border to millions of unvetted “newcomers,” as the global elites like to call the invaders, there has been a reckless U.S. policy going back two decades to resettle Muslim refugees from Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan in the U.S. heartland. And because immigration policy no longer treats assimilation as a worthwhile goal, many of those refugees are loyal to their homeland and their religion much more than to the nation that offered them safety and security.

I suppose that is an inevitable result of the globalist agenda of border dissolution and the merging of disparate populations for the purpose of sharing wealth and assuaging billionaires’ guilt.

But it is only inevitable if the rest of us tolerate it.

Heliophysics and Common Ground

The solar eclipse brought us all together for one day. Well, we do share common ground when, like Thales, our heads are craned upwards in wonder. That common ground is the home planet, spaceship Earth, upon which we stand, bitterly disagree, and slaughter one another when not distracted by an unusual celestial phenomenon.  Clearly, common ground of the terrestrial sort is not enough: we also need ideological common ground to make the world less of an abattoir.

This is something the open-borders types don't want to understand. One of their fundamental errors is to imagine that all-inclusive diversity is compatible with social harmony.   

It is not that diversity is not a value; it plainly is.  Many types of diversity are good. One thinks of culinary diversity, musical diversity, artistic diversity generally. Biodiversity is good, and so is a diversity of opinions, especially insofar as such diversity makes possible a robustly competitive marketplace of ideas wherein the best rise to the top. A diversity of testable hypotheses is conducive to scientific progress. And so on.

Multi-Racial but not Multi-Cultural: Self-Critique of a May 2017 Entry

In May of 2017, I wrote:

The USA cannot help but be a multi-racial society, but if we cannot agree on a common culture for public purposes with English as its official language and the values of the founding documents as its foundation, then the end is in sight. But collapse takes time and those of us in our mid-60s, assuming we don't live too long, should be able to weather the storm without too much stress. 

I am less sanguine now; things are far worse.

One problem is that we lack the collective will to demand the assimilation without which even legal immigration is a recipe for Balkanization.  Any sane person who does not intend the destruction of our republic should be able to see that the values of Sharia are incompatible with American values, and that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate who are unwilling to accept and honor our values.  There is no right to immigrate, and immigration must be to the benefit of the host country.

But the problem just mentioned is minor compared to the problem that we don't even have the 'logically prior' collective will to enforce reasonable laws and put a stop to illegal immigration and the flouting of Federal immigration law by so-called 'sanctuary' cities and other jurisdictions. First, stop illegal immigration, then worry about assimilation in connection with legal immigration.

This unlikely to happen even if Trump gets a second term.

Once more: improper entry into the country is already a violation of the criminal code. When the mayor of a great city, New York, refuses to deport illegal aliens who commit such serious felonies as driving while intoxicated, then you know that there is precious little common ground left.

We cannot agree on this? Then what can we agree on?

We conservatives can blame ourselves to some extent. We lost ourselves in our private lives while the destructive Left had its way.  

Paradoxically, our appreciation that the political is a limited sphere has left us at a disadvantage over against leftists for whom the political is the only sphere. 

This is an ingredient in what I call The Conservative Disadvantage.