Immigration, and the Unconstitutional President
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Thanks
to the Democrat Party, racial politics has become a full blown weapon.
As deconstructionists, who wish to show America as being a racist
nation so that they may better be able to put into place their own
liberal agenda, the image of Trayvon Martin laying on the ground with a
bullet in him has created a racial divide that is doing wonders for
the liberal left agenda. As race hustlers, who have made that case
much larger for their own agenda, it is inevitable that the effects of
the case will spill over into other issues, such as immigration.
Racial
politics is a very destructive weapon, and the opponents of the U.S.
Constitution are doing whatever they can to create an environment of
rage in relation to race in America. The "race card" tool is also one
that the Left is using in regards to illegal immigration. The issue of
immigration, however, has little to do about immigration with these
people as much as it has to do with changing America at its foundation,
adding new voters to their cause, and betraying the Constitution of the
United States.
One
only needs to travel through the text along the pages of the Law of the
Land to recognize how unconstitutional the push for amnesty truly is.
From the Preamble to the Fourteenth Amendment, we find that the liberal
left's angle on this issue places in danger our national security, the
sacrosanct nature of citizenship, and the importance of the rule of law.
Though the word "immigration" is not mentioned anywhere in the
Constitution, the issue exists throughout the pages of that document.
The
need for a Constitution was realized when Shays' Rebellion proved that
the United States Government was not strong enough to protect the union.
When Revolutionary War veterans blocked the steps of courthouses over
financial troubles that grew while
they were serving the new nation, the government under the Articles of
Confederation were unable to quell the insurrection. It took the
merchants in Boston putting together a mercenary force to resolve the
problem. Through the States needed to protect their State Sovereignty
by ensuring the central government was limited, the new country also
needed a government strong enough to dispatch the necessary options for
protecting the union, and ultimately the sovereign States.
We
the People, through our States not only wished for a more perfect
union, but one that followed the rule of law, existed with domestic
tranquility, and was defended against external enemies, be they military
invaders, or invaders of another kind.
In
Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the United States
Congress is granted the legislative powers of the United States
Government. This means the federal power to make law, modify law, or
repeal law rests in the halls of Congress. The concept of "Separation
of Powers" means that no other branch has this power, meaning they
cannot act legislatively from a constitutional point of view. What this
means is that all Executive Orders that creates law, modifies law, or
refuses to enforce law, are unconstitutional. When Barack Obama signed
executive orders putting in place the Dream Act, for example, it was
against the Constitution, which is the law of the land. . . which makes
his executive actions that attempt to legislate illegal, and void.
The current democrat president's way around this
issue has also been to refuse to enforce immigration laws that are on
the books - and action that is once again unconstitutional. Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution states that the president "shall take
care the Laws be faithfully executed." Enforcing current immigration
laws are important because, as it states in Article IV, Section 4, the
federal government is tasked with guaranteeing that each of the States
are protected against invasion.
Originally,
the States had full authority over immigration. They decided for
themselves who they would allow in, and who they would prohibit. The
goal was to attract immigrants that were more beneficial to the State's
growth, while also ensuring that the immigrants desired to
be fully loyal to their new home.
Article
I, Section 9 of the Constitution inserted the federal government into
immigration by enabling Congress to pass laws prohibiting who could
migrate into the States. It is important to note that the clause does
not enable Congress to dictate to the States who they have to accept.
In
the lawsuit by the federal government against the Arizona immigration
law, the federal government was not only trying to stop the State of
Arizona from enforcing immigration laws on the books, but to force
Arizona to accept illegal aliens that the law says are unlawfully in
their State. In the process of filing the court case the Department of
Justice went against the Constitution by filing the case in one of the
inferior federal courts. Article III, Section 2 is clear, "all Cases. .
. in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction." In other words, Eric Holder should have filed
the case directly with the Supreme Court of the United States, for that
was the only court that had the jurisdiction to hear that case.
Even
the idea that anchor babies are citizens just because they were born on
American soil is unconstitutional, and in direct violation of the
original intent of the Founding Fathers when they formed our federal
government through the writing of the Constitution.
The American Revolution was only supported by a third of the
population. The second third was ambivalent, unconcerned over who won
the war, as long as their lives continued on no different after it was
all over. The final third of America's population were against the push
for independence, and considered themselves to be loyal to the British
Crown. As far as they were concerned, those that supported independence
from Great Britain were traitors to the Crown. After the war ended,
most of the "Tories" went to Great Britain, unwilling to live in a place
that had broken ties with Mother England, and unwilling to live in a
place where they could become targets because of their attitudes against
American independence. Not all loyalists went to Britain. Many of
them remained in the United States, and it was because of these people
that the importance of "full allegiance" to the United States resided in
the minds of
the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there
could be no divided loyalty. Even a hundred years after the
Revolutionary War, President Theodore Roosevelt understood the
importance of full allegiance to the United States:
"Any
man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an
American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We
have room for but one language here, and that is the English language
... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to
the American people." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1919.
Despite
the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, after
hostilities ended the emancipated
slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American
citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the
United States "legally," and because they were here legally they were
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving
any assurance of equal protection under the law.
The
Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, written primarily by
Senators Howard and Trumbull, aimed to ensure the emancipated slaves,
and their children, received citizenship, while also guarding against
divided allegiances as intended by the founders. Therefore, the
language used is very specific.
"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."
The
term "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof," is the key, here. If you
go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment,
"full jurisdiction" means in part "full allegiance to America."
Since
illegal aliens are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the
United States, their children born in the U.S. are not automatically
American citizens.
Michigan
Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the
14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision,
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had
tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are
foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign
ministers."
Exact quotes:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the
consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The
first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in
the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not
propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of
citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any
further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered
is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,
that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes
all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United
States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and
legislation of this country.
He even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.
Clearly, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just
anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.
The
second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman
Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"
meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
The full quote by Senator Trumbull reads:
"The
provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the
complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete
jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing
allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Trumbull
continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense
subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means.
We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our
jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is
only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are
subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be
no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:
"Mr.
HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois
[Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed,
ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on
the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the
executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same
jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the
United States now."
Based
on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is
understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American
citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply
were born inside the borders of this country.
Then
there is amnesty, the elephant in the room of all immigration debates.
Not only does it conflict with all of the other constitutional concepts
we have been discussing in this article, but it also flies in the face
of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, which prohibits the federal
government from passing ex post facto law (retroactive law).
Amnesty makes previously illegal behavior retroactively legal, which is
directly in opposition to the Constitution.
What
we have here is an unconstitutional president, pushing unconstitutional
immigration actions in an unconstitutional manner. . . and to make sure
you disregard the illegality of his
actions, he is creating a racial divide in this country, and will
accuse any opposition to his unconstitutional immigration policies as
being racist against the illegal aliens.
The solution?
We must all be active in the fight.
Douglas V. Gibbs
*************************
Doug is a longtime Internet
radio host, conservative political activist, writer and commentator; he is the
host of Constitution Radio and teaches weekly classes on the Constitution in Southern California. Follow him @douglasvgibbs.
**********************
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's
"INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!: (Just click
on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other
popular conservative writers!)
No comments:
Post a Comment