Posted on 09/03/2015 7:42:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
The tone of the debate over the nation's immigration laws has taken an ugly turn as some office-seekers offer solutions to problems that don't exist.
The natural rights of all persons consist of areas of human behavior for which we do not need and will not accept the need for a government permission slip.
We all expect that the government will leave us alone when we think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, enter our homes, choose our mates or travel. The list of natural rights is endless.
We expect this not because we are Americans, but because we are persons and these rights are integral to our nature. We expect this in America because the Constitution was written to restrain the government from interfering with natural rights.
When these first principles are violated to advance a political cause or to quell public fear, those whose rights are violated because of an immutable characteristic of birth, not because of personal culpability, become the victims of ugly public indifference or official government repression. The American history of government treatment of Africans and their offspring and the European history of government treatment of the Jewish people are poignant and terrible examples of this.
Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism -- we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first -- is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution underscore the truism that all persons have the same natural rights, irrespective of where their mothers were when they delivered them.
The right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The court protects natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them, absent due process.
The high bar is called strict scrutiny. It requires that the government demonstrate an articulated area of jurisdiction and a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive alternative before it can treat a person differently or uniquely because of his or her place of birth. A compelling state interest is one that is necessary to preserve life or the state's existence, and it must be addressed using the least force and causing the least interference with personal liberty possible.
This test was written so as to give the government wiggle room in a crisis and to make it intentionally difficult -- nearly impossible -- to write laws that apply only to discrete groups when membership in them is determined by birth.
But the Constitution itself -- from which all federal powers derive -- does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.
Thus, when the government's motivation for enacting immigration laws is to further genuine compelling foreign policy goals, the laws will be upheld. But when the government's motivation is nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism, strict scrutiny will operate to defeat those laws.
Shortly after the first federal immigration statute was enacted in the 1880s -- the Chinese Exclusion Act -- the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or illegally, are persons, and the Constitution protects all persons from governmental deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process.
In the same era, the court held that all babies born here of alien mothers are citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires this, and its language is inclusive: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States..." Though written to protect former slaves, its language is not limited to them.
Some well-intended folks have argued that the language "all persons" doesn't really mean "all" because it is modified by "and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States)." But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government -- like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not -- and cannot -- impose an intent requirement upon infants.
My guess is that nearly "all persons" reading this are beneficiaries of this clause because they -- you -- were born here.
When the history of our times is written, it might relate that the majority repressed the rights of minorities by demonizing them using appeals to group prejudice -- by blaming entire ethnic groups for the criminal behavior of some few members of those groups.
That history might reflect that this was done for short-term political gain.
If that happens, it will have changed America far more radically and dangerously than any wave of undocumented immigrants did.
And that would be profoundly and perhaps irreparably un-American
Some well-intended folks have argued that the language "all persons" doesn't really mean "all" because it is modified by "and subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States)." But that language refers to the offspring of mothers who, though here, are still subject to a foreign government -- like foreign diplomats, agents or military. It does not refer to those fleeing foreign governments. It does not -- and cannot -- impose an intent requirement upon infants.
It can and it does refer to the intent of the parents of infants. The suggestion here is that the infants have an intent distinguishable from their parents. This is a tyrannical assumption, actually - it denies parents the natural right to raise their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” - or not to. The suggestion is that if a foreign power were to occupy a portion of the US - as the Japanese did in fact occupy two Aleutian Islands, part of the Territory of Alaska, in 1942 - the children of any such invading colonizers would be “Americans.”Of course, the idea of obtaining American citizenship for their descendants was the furthest thing from the mind of the Japanese in 1942 - but whether that is or is not the system of the Mexican government in 2015 is a question to be addressed. Trump’s candidacy is in fact primarily a debating point: “Resolved, that by the time one in three Mexicans is living in the US, the US has the right and duty take note, and take action.”
I noted above that the conceit that infants have an intent distinguishable from their parents is tyrannical. And indeed, the “anchor baby” concept explicitly rejects it by asserting that the foreign national who procreates in America must not note well, not may not but must not - be separated from their “American” baby by deportation.
So the fallacy of the “anchor baby” concept is that its proponents claim both that the baby has an intent to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and must not be separated from its parents who are “living in the shadows” because they (hence, their baby) would not be in the US if they were not avoiding “subject(ion) to the jurisdiction thereof.
We should eliminate birthright citizenship for anyone who is not a US citizen or legal permanent resident.
Thanks for sharing. Right now I just want to stop illegals flooding into the US. Let’s do first things first....
The judge is indulging in a very low form of demagoguery and slur-mongering. He seems oblivious to the "very dangerous and ugly results" that lawless immigration policies have led to and will exacerbate as long as the lawlessness continues. A judge of all people should have some appreciation of that.
Does he think that all those in the world who'd like to come to the USA should be allowed to come?
No, we need to reduce legal immigration as well. It is a bigger problem.
I noticed that he is part of the NWO-—to destroy the Christian Worldview in children.....that is what this invasion is all about-—to fundamentally ERASE the Worldview which created the Minds of our Founders-—the understanding of Natural Law which created the Age of Reason and the abstract, brilliant minds who created a Revolution and created the most perfect, most free and diverse country in history.
The invasion is to plant a majority of tribal minds who will believe the State for total “happy slavery”-—when they SAY Vice is Virtue, males are females, and are as dumb as stumps incapable of Reason and Logic-—they will be like the obama phone lady-——incapable of the Western Mind which created Modern Science.
That is what this is about-—because our public schools will produce the most irrational, virtueless people (which will be a slave culture only)-—total irrational, tribal minds where slavery is normal.
It is for the NWO-—the elites want to destroy the Christian Worldview-—there is a culture war-—to erase one-type of Mind (the one based on Objective Truth/God and Individual natural rights from God-——they want “group think” only-—that which the public schools will produce-—cogs (no male/female) in the wheel for total slavery and a culture which will kill billions (they want less than a billion people on earth for their NWO.)
Nappy is off the reservation.
Nappy says the right to travel is a natural right. True enough I suppose but how come I can’t drive from Indiana to Kentucky without a driver’s license? Under his theory, if I was an illegal alien, seeking asylum, I would be untouchable. Sorry Nappy, all aliens are “touchable.”
I doubt you can even drive in your town without a drivers license unless you know your drivers license number by heart
Work on that, friend. I’ve got other fish to fry....
Oh, man!
What a sstudpid idea.
Let’s try flooding Mexico with Anglos, and see how far that argument takes us.
Those with legal immigration visas get a Green Card issued after they report to the immigration office and are declared permanent residents.
What a colossal pile of BS
Mexican laws states... U.S. citizens should avoid all election-related demonstrations and other activities that might be deemed political by the authorities. The Mexican Constitution prohibits political activities by foreigners; such actions may result in detention and/or deportation.
While in that corruptocracy they may welcome technically verboten assistance to the establishment, but this is not like the way it is being bucked.
Some American minds have gotten so open that their brains have fallen out on the floor.
Since when has mexico (spelled purposely in lower case) a right to tell us what we can do in our country?
The more I hear from Andrew Napolitano the more I think he is a crackpot.
They drive 80% of our population growth. The demographics of this country have been and will continue to be changed dramatically. By 2019, half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2043, half of the country will be minorities.
Illegal immigration is the shiny little object that deflects our attention away from legal immigration, which has been destroying this country since Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act. America will be lost thru the ballot box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.