Replies

It's always good to see the 'ol 14th get batted up there to buttress the argument that there is something rational and fair about the supposition that any foreign national who happens to be in the country while pregnant can select the very next U.S. citizen all on her very own just by going into labor. Because that's not what the amendment was intended to do, and Sr. Gonzalez knows it, even if he agrees with it.

The controversy continues over the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ever since it was twisted in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 to legitimize the citizenship by birth of Mr. Ark who was born to Chinese nationals in San Francisco (on Sacramento St., even). Note that the folks WERE in San Francisco legally at the time, and no issue is taken over the fact that they were subjects of the Emperor of China.

That it was twisted is readily evident by studying the original debates on it in Congress, where it was originally intended only to include slaves born in servitude and later emancipated. But read the decision itself first, we'll get to Senator Howard's statement later.
LINK: Wong Kim Ark Decision

To this day, the children of diplomats here on their assignments are not considered U.S. citizens, but rather nationals of their own country, as would be the rational conclusion for the nationality of any child of an illegal alien. In fact, it is this sole criteria that is required for Mexican nationality for children born in the United States to "Mexicans in the exterior" as their government puts it.
LINK: Mexican Nationality Act and Information (tab down after reading the dual nationality bit. The Nationality Act text is about a page below. Note that until this law was passed, becoming a citizen of another country was an "infraction" that resulted in loss of citizenship).

It would take only an act of Congress to change this, and Mr. Stump of Arizona has introduced such a bill, H.R. 190. It merely clarifies the statement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in a necessary way to prevent activist judges from making up law by exploiting imprecision in the original text.
LINK: H.R. 190

The notion that somebody who tripped over the border one morning and prest-o change-o produces a little American because the jolt caused her to go into labor is ludicrous and anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that (like, the Mexican government, which most certainly does not grant citizenship in such cases). But this continuing abuse of the Constitution is useful to many groups - Democrats looking for clients, Mexican hegemonists looking to build a voting block, Leftists seeking to deconstruct the polity, and of course, the illegals themselves - and a complete insult to one group: Americans.

The eminently readable and rational Allan Wall wrote an extensive and illuminating article about this for FrontPageMagazine, where he reiterates the statement of the Author of the 14th, Senator Jacob Howard:

The clear, original intent of the 14th Amendment was spelled out in 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of its citizenship clause, who wrote "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Clearly the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to encourage foreigners to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Sadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.

LINK: Anchor Babies Article

Mr. Gonzalez' well intentioned defense of the continuing abuse of the 14th is his understandable concern for the children of refugees from the land of the Tyrant Fidel Castro. My comment to him is, if fewer people from one OTHER country were abusing the amendment this way there MIGHT be more sympathy for Cubans, who at least have an argument other than bad economics at home for busting the border.

I am neither defending, nor attacking the Amendment, it simply IS, and that's the way it has been interpreted. We can't judge on the "intention" of documents, only on what the amendment says.

"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."

That's what it says. The problem is that we generally want to argue amendments according to our particular beliefs.

The second amendment means exactly what it says because as conservatives, we believe in our right to keep and bear arms, yet, we want to "interpret" the 14th.

The Libs do the exact opposite.

By the way, my ideals, and my beliefs were formed long before Elian Gonzalez reached our shores, and they are based on my understanding of the words of the Founders, not on some noble need to be a savior to little immigrant children.

Now, you may chose to parse words on the 14th, Lord knows that there is a whole lot of that parsing coming from the left on the second, but it says what it says.