Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Opportunism And Nonsense On The 14th Amendment

As has been pointed out before, the main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give citizenship and the attached rights of citizenship to the freed black slaves after the Civil War. Nothing in its purpose was to give citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Evidence of this is that fact that the 14th Amendment did not give citizenship to Indians. If Indians in the United States were not citizens, they had a separate identity and citizenship, then the children of illegal aliens cannot either, as they have a separate citizenship and identity, as do their parents. Mexico, which provides most of the illegal aliens and consequently most of the children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens recognizes that those children born abroad to its citizens are Mexican citizens. Most countries have this policy that children born abroad to its citizens maintain that citizenship. So, this is evidence that contradicts the basic claim of those who advocate citizenship for the children of illegals; the fear that these children will be stateless. Statelessness is actually a minor problem, usually found among children born in refugee camps throughout the world where the country where the refugee camp is located refusing to give citizenship to children born there. It is encountered in the U.S. occasionally when said refugees cause themselves to be deportable because of criminal convictions in the U.S. The typical cry is that despite their crimes they should not be deported because they are stateless or that they do not know whatever country they are being deported to. This is clearly not true for children born to Mexican parents illegally in the U.S. Few of those parents speak English, so their children speak Spanish. Most illegals from Mexico and their children, born here or not, maintain their culture, even traveling to and from Mexico, like Jessica Colotl. So despite cries to the contrary, the children of illegal aliens are part of Mexican culture and commonweal. 99% of Mexicans who are deported take their anchor babies with them. Nothing wrong with that. Mexico is not a rotting hellhole like the Congo. There are no problems if they are returned to Mexico.

This brings us to John McCain, RINO, who has suddenly jumped on the bandwagon of a Constitutional Amendment to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, the infamous anchor babies. And we know what McCain will do once re-elected. He turn 180 degrees on this issue. He will take any stand to get re-elected and give the shaft to those dumb enough to enjoy this boob bait for bubbas.

Now, I think, like Commentary and Peter Wehner, that this is not the battle to fight. Such an Amendment is unlikely to get two thirds of the Senate or the States for a convention, much less three fourths for ratification. There are much easier ways to deal with the anchor baby. First, don't let his mother in. Second, deport his parents before birth. Third, don't attract his parents with free stuff; maternal care, welfare, health care, education, etc. Fourth, don't allow his parents to work here illegally. Fifth, and most importantly, repeal the laws where American citizens can sponsor parents and siblings for immigration, chain migration. That is the true goal of producing an anchor baby. Twenty-one years later they can sponsor their parents and siblings for entry. These are things that can be done without a Constitutional Amendment. Most are already in the law. The only change needed would be the end to legal chain migration which does not need a Constitutional Amendment, but a mere Act of Congress.

Beyond that, though, McCain’s stand strikes me as political posturing —
something that has no chance of passage and which may end up being distracting
from the real problems we face and that we can far more easily address,
including the reduction of the large number of illegal immigrants crossing our
borders.

There is an argument according to which, if we were starting from scratch,
children of illegal immigrants should not be granted automatic citizenship;
after all, this was clearly not the use of the 14th amendment intended by its
architects.

However, unlike Wehner, I don't buy into the emotion based nonsense created by the left about criminalizing babies.

But we’re not beginning from scratch — and revoking birthright citizenship
now would, as Michael Gerson has written, “turn hundreds of thousands of infants into ‘criminals’ — arriving, not across a border, but crying in a hospital.”


It is sad that any alleged conservative is following the childish scribbling of propagandists like Gerson, a strange man obsessed with Bristol Palin. What mature adult man who is touted as a political writer would say anything about a pregnant 17 year old girl. Clearly it was only to attack Republicans and so was his comments on illegals. There is no maturity in claiming that a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment will criminalize babies. That is the nonsense of unreflected though and propaganda worthy of the CPUSA, which by the way, supports anchor babies. It is disappointing that Wehner is incapable of standing up to this childish nonsense and dealing maturely with the issue. We expect such immaturity from the left, but is Wehner aspiring to be part of the ruling class? Methinks so. As is typical of the beltway cons, they get it correct, but then preemptively surrender. It is like using the left's vocabulary: gay instead of homosexual; pro-choice instead of pro-abortion; gender instead of sex. Preemptive surrender never wins.

No comments: