RELIGION or POLITICS ??? How about children born of illegals????

Hello again, folks. For the next few blogs I am going to delve into the subject of Illegals and their children. Contents taken from the monthly Newsletter, Imprimis, published by Hillsdale College, Michigan. The article is entitled Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship:  Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny., written by Edward Erler,  Professor of Political science at California State University.


BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ---  THE policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical  limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship  --  is a great magnet for illegal immigration.   Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system.   BUT this is simply NOT true.

      The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.    As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law.  Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship.    The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from the feudal law.   It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual  allegiance as a "debt of gratitude".   According to BAlckstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered."    Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. 

     America's Founders rejected this doctrine.   The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies...are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved".    According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason".     So the common law -- the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance -- could not possibly serve as the ground  of American (i.e., republican) citizenship.    Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain.  

         James wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked:  "Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects".    The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution.     Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed -- not the accident of birth.


And there you have it for today, and I will continue on Friday with "WHO IS A CITIZEN"?    Some interesting information is coming up you may not bve familiar with and if know gooding old  US of A is important to you, and you should if you visit here at all, which I appreciate very much if you do, then stay with me, great stuff ahead.     Cheers     CJ