Cato Institute advances myth about birth right citizenship


#1

See: [COLOR=blue]In Praise of Birthright Citizenship[/COLOR]

” The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted 144 years ago on July 9, provides for the grant of birthright citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorized immigrants and lawful immigrants with various forms of residency. Despite the current controversy around this provision, the 14th Amendment is unintentionally successful as a policy for assimilating the children of immigrants.”

The fact is, the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment was intentionally adopted to provide birth right citizenship to children born to a parent “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

And just what does “subject to the jurisdiction” within the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment mean?

Mr. TRUMBULL responds to the above as follows [COLOR=blue]SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) [/COLOR]
1st column halfway down

“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 “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: ***“…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State. ******

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”*** …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as ***“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” ***[COLOR=blue]Cong.Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.[/COLOR]

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Of course, the Cato Institute, having an agenda promoting unrestricted immigration, will use its resources to advance propaganda rather than rely upon truth and historical facts which conflict with its irrational unrestricted open border agenda.

JWK


[SIZE=4]Without our Fifth Column Media, Loretta Lynch and a corrupted FBI, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary


[/SIZE]


#2

CATO is a joke; Leftist destroyers of Liberty hiding under a banner of Libertarian clichés.


#3

? Uh, BS, they release periodic articles on the destructive force behind Obamacare, Welfare, currency manipulation, and denying the economic liberty of Christian Bakers (hell, that article is from 3 days ago).

All of which are pet causes of the left, and all of which CATO curb stomp them on, again and again.

You don’t get to hold one issue you disagree with them on in isolation of everything else they do, and call them leftist. That is entirely dishonest.


#4

.

When it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck, it really must be a duck. As we shall see, our Global Governance Crowd friends at Cato pretend the Pacific Rim Trade Agreement is not a “Treaty”.

SEE: Top Nine Myths About Trade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Under “Myth 1: TPA and U.S. FTAs are unconstitutional and undemocratic!” we find:

”Finally, it’s important to reiterate that, contrary to some claims, FTAs are not treaties (which are typically “self-executing,” require two-thirds approval by the Senate, and have the force of law upon ratification).”

Now, with regard to the language contained in constitutions see:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

***”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…***”__ (my emphasis)

So, what is meant by a “treaty” as expressed by our Founders?

In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”

And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, *** Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…”***

Finally, In Federalist No. 22 Hamilton talks about “a treaty of commerce” as follows:

”A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.”

The irrefutable fact is, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement falls within the meaning of a treaty as the word was used and understood by our founding fathers, and as such, requires a two thirds vote to become an enforceable contract, or bargain with the nations involved.

So why do the proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement, and this includes the snakes at the Cato Institute, pretend it is not a treaty? The obvious answer is, to avoid having to bribe a two thirds vote to accomplish their evil doings!

And if you think bribery is not taking place on this issue, here is the evidence that members of our Senate have sold their vote!

See:Corporations shell out $1.2mn in Senate contributions to fast-track TPP

“What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 million given, an average of $17,000 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes. Republicans received an average of $19,000 and Democrats received $9,700.

*“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.” *

JWK

***" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ***___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87