Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html
Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements.
No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.
State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War: while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason. From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis. Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian. Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis.
So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States. They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).
But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED. Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY. Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states. And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.
This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President. But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility. So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture. Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.
But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen. This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:
Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens
What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….
Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)). Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries.
But I can live with that. As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.
No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach. The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power. The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s. He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound. Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.
People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks. (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.
While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada? The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing.
The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case).
Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States. So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote.
So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this.
Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States. Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).
Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.” (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).