RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN??

Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.


                                                                 ********
 
Greetings to all on this glorious new monday and a new week. And for those who are not over the football game yesterday, well, there is always my archives. And there is a lot of blogs that you might enjoy if you happen to be here for the first time, asuuming you are interested in government and the spiritual side of life. Today we continue the subject of Illegals and Citizenship..
 
 
      In sum, this legacy of feudalism -- which we today call  birthright citizenship --- was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868.   It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizendship on the children of illegal aliens.   Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right.   Their allegiance should follow that of the parents during their minority.   Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American Law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance -- or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
 
      Their is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S..  An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship.    The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship.   The majority opinion did not explain how 'subjects' were miraculously transformed into 'citizens' and within the common law.   Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that "citizen' and 'subject' were convertible terms -- as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism.    Indeed, Chief Justice wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.
 
     The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be over-turned.   This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture.  But in any case, to say that children of 'legal' aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing;   after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S.   It is entirely different with 'illegal aliens', who are here without permission.   This repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.
 
      We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not "subject to he jurisdiction" of the U.S.   Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis.   Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes.    Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen.   This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U. S. and acceptance on the part of the individual.  Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S.   It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that childred born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are NOT subject to American jurisdiction.  A constitutional amendment is no more rquired now than it was in 1923.
 
So there you have it for this monday, with the final chapter to be blogged on Wednesday. Meantime, chin up, keep alert, and smile.     Cheers    CJ