"Pat Tillman. The man gave up his career dream $3.6 MILLION DOLLAR FOOTBALL CONTRACT to fight and die for something greater than anything money could buy."Male 30 years old --- Heaven, United States --- Pat Tillman,R.I.P. is a true American Hero. This is not a political platform this was solely created to enshrine a hero Pat Tillman.Pat was the star NFL Defensive Back who, after the 9/11 attacks, walked away from his $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals to enlist as an elite Army Ranger and go off to Afghanistan to whip some terrorist butt. No matter what your opinion on the U.S. Invasion of Iraq there is no denying that Pat Is a hero.Patrick Daniel Tillman (November 6, 1976 – April 22, 2004) was an American football player who left his professional sports career and enlisted in the United States Army in May 2002. [1] He served in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, where he was killed. Reports in the media of his death and the background of his sacrifice symbolized a heroic image in the minds of many Americans.Born in San Jose, California, Tillman started his college career at the linebacker position for Arizona State University in 1994, when he secured the last remaining scholarship for the team. Tillman excelled as a linebacker at Arizona State, despite being relatively small for the position at five-feet eleven-inches (1.80 m) tall. As a senior, he was voted the Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year. Academically, Tillman majored in marketing and graduated in three and a half years with a 3.84 GPA.In the 1998 NFL Draft, Tillman was selected as the 226th pick by the Arizona Cardinals. Tillman moved over to play the safety position in the NFL and started ten of sixteen games in his rookie season.In May 2002, eight months after the September 11, 2001 attacks and after completing the fifteen remaining games of the 2001 season which followed the attacks (at a salary of $512,000 per year)[4], Tillman turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army. [5] He enlisted along with his brother Kevin, who gave up the chance of a career in professional baseball. The two brothers completed training for the elite Army Ranger school in late 2002 and were assigned to the second battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington. Both Pat and Kevin were deployed to the Middle East as part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.Tillman was subsequently redeployed to Afghanistan, where, on April 22, 2004, he was killed in action by friendly fire while on patrol. His unit, according to the Army, was attacked in an apparent ambush on a road outside of the village of Sperah about twenty-five miles (forty km) southwest of Khost, near the Pakistan border. An Afghan militia soldier was killed, and two other Rangers were injured as well. The U.S. Department of Defense concluded that Pat Tillman's death was due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight. It was later learned that, in fact, no hostile forces were involved in the firefight and that two allied groups fired on each other in confusion over an exploded mine or remote controlled bomb. U.S. Army Special Operations Command, however, initially claimed that there was an exchange with hostile forces. A later investigation conducted by Brigadier General Jones found that the Army was slow to correct the story of a hostile exchange of fire after learning that it was false.Tillman was the first professional football player to be killed in combat since the death of Bob Kalsu of the Buffalo Bills, who died in the Vietnam War in 1970. Tillman was posthumously promoted from Specialist to Corporal. He also received posthumous Silver Star and Purple Heart medals. He is survived by his wife Marie.After his death, the Pat Tillman Foundation was established to carry forward Tillman's legacy by inspiring and supporting those striving for positive change in themselves and the world around them. A highway bypass around the Hoover Dam will have a bridge bearing Tillman's name. When completed in 2008, the Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge will span the Colorado River between Nevada and Arizona.The Cardinals retired his number 40, and Arizona State did the same for the number 42 he wore with the Sun Devils. The Cardinals said that they will also name the plaza surrounding their new stadium, currently under construction in the Phoenix suburb of Glendale, "Pat Tillman Freedom Plaza."Pat Tillman's high school, Leland High School in San Jose, California, renamed its football field after him.On Saturday, April 15, 2006, more than 10,000 participants turned out for Pat's Run in Tempe, Arizona. The racers traveled along the 4.2-mile course around Tempe Town Lake to the finish line, located on the Sun Devil's 42 yardline. For this its second year, participants in the race nearly doubled from 5,500.please CLICK www.pattillmanfoundation.org
CLICK NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------"O ne way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------That is our bottom line." ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998- ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." -- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."-- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------"T here is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------- In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL, ) and others, Dec, 5, 2001-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------"W e begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,- ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2000 *----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability,------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- and his nuclear program.---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? -- ----------- BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP --------- The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States. Some 380,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data. The only exceptions to this automatic granting of citizenship are the children of foreign diplomats stationed in the United States, whose citizenship at birth is governed by international treaty.---------- "ANCHOR BABIES" --------The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil.They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.While there is no formal policy that forbids DHS from deporting the illegal-alien parents of children born in the U.S., they rarely are actually deported. In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.Thus, the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens not only represent additional U.S. population growth, but act as 'anchors' to eventually pull a large number of extended family members into the country legally. In fact, an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Thousands of pregnant women who are about to deliver come to the United States each year from countries as far away as South Korea and as near as Mexico so that they can give birth on U.S. soil. Some come legally as temporary visitors; others enter illegally. Once the child is born, they get a U.S. birth certificate and passport for the child, and their future link to this country is established and irreversible.Fourteenth Amendment DebateBirthright citizenship is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was originally enacted to ensure civil rights for the newly freed slaves after the Civil War. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "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."A serious and scholarly debate has been on-going for years about whether illegal aliens (and temporary visitors) are, in fact, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Some scholars insist that the phrase has no real meaning of its own, but rather is essentially another way of saying "born in the United States." They believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires that any child born on U.S. soil be granted U.S. citizenship. Other scholars look to the legal traditions observed by most courts, including the presumption that all words used in a legislation are intended to have meaning (i.e., not simply be restatements) and that, if the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear or ambiguous, the congressional debate over the legislation may indicate the authors' intent. These scholars therefore presume that "subject to the jurisdiction" means something different from "born in the United States," so they have looked to the original Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment to determine its meaning. They conclude that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT want to grant citizenship to every person who happened to be born on U.S. soil.The jurisdiction requirement was added to the original draft of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Senate after a lengthy and acrimonious debate. In fact, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the phrase specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Sen. Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already." Sen. Howard said that "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."Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, who was the only Democrat to participate in the Senate debate, was even more explicit about the meaning of the jurisdiction requirement: “[A]ll 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 -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States.†Sen. Johnson's reading of the jurisdiction requirement also is consistent with our naturalization requirements. Since at least 1795, federal laws governing naturalization have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required.In light of these and other statements made during the Senate debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears clear that the authors intended only to grant citizenship to persons born here who were also "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. They understood that phrase to have the same meaning as the phrase "and not subject to any foreign Power," included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which these same Senators had earlier drafted. And by "subject to the jurisdiction," they meant "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense," and "[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else."It would be difficult to argue that illegal aliens and temporary visitors are "not subject to [a] foreign [p]ower" or that they do not "ow[e] allegiance to anybody" but the United States. The Supreme Court, however, has never decided the issue. The closest it has come is a case involving the U.S.-born child of lawful permanent residents in which, of course, it held the child to be a U.S. citizen. In the absence of a ruling by the Supreme Court, it will remain up to Congress to clarify the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or to accept the status quo.Original intent of the 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:"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."This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.Supreme Court decisions The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.HINDU PERSPECTIVE ON TERROR: Las Vegas Symposium ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------Does Militant Islam pose a serious threat to liberal democracies?------------------------------------------ Should we believe in the sanctimonious rhetoric that Islam is a peaceful religion?------------------------------------------ Has the “Clash of Civilization†already taken roots? Should Muslim immigration be stopped to democratic countries? Why 95% of the terrorist activities are conducted by the followers of Islam?------------------------------------------ Should Qur’anic injunctions which preach hatred, extol the virtue of violence, carry commandments to kill infidels, be modified?------------------------------------------ Is Pakistan still the epicenter of the terrorism? Is Pakistan using sophistry and subterfuge, as a weapon to advance its diabolical designs to spread terrorism?------------------------------------------ Is Pakistan playing duplicitous and disingenuous role in the war on terror?------------------------------------------ Should Islam be treated as a Religion or a Political Party?------------------------------------------ How to prevent fifth column of jihadists from promoting, recruiting and financing Islamic terrorism?------------------------------------------ These were some of the difficult questions that were raised and debated in the two-day educational Symposium on November 10 and 11, 2006 organized in Las Vegas, Nevada by America’s Truth Forum.------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------America's Truth Forum is a non-partisan, fact-based organization whose mission is to educate the American people on controversial topics of national security.------------------------------------------ Their primary objective is to disseminate critical information that is not readily available, via conventional channels, to the concerned public.------------------------------------------ The Forum has close working relationship with the former CIA, FBI officials, other top-notch experts on counter-terrorism, influential intelligence officials and opinion makers in the country.---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------Indian American Intellectuals Forum (IAIF) was invited to participate in this high profile Symposium to present the Hindu perspective on terror.------------------------------------------ The Symposium was appropriately titled “Understanding the Threat of Islamist Terrorism.†------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------Addressing those present as ‘the leaders with vision, perspicacity, competency and sense of History,’ Dr. Babu Suseelan, a Clinical Psychologist from Pennsylvania, and a Board Member of IAIF said:------------------------------------------ “First of all, we should understand in unambiguous terms that the terrible terrorist events such as the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11/2001 in which more than 3000 people perished,------------------------------------------ the attack on underground London Subway System on July 7, 2005 in which about 60 people were killed,------------------------------------------ the terrorist attack on Madrid railway station on March 11, 2004 in which more than 200 people were killed,------------------------------------------ the killing of 344 innocent children on September 4, 2004, at a Beslan school in Russia,------------------------------------------ the terrible bomb blast in Bali, Indonesia on October 12, 2002 in which 200 innocent tourists were killed,------------------------------------------ the attack in Mumbai, India in 1993 in which 58 people were blown to bits,------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------another bomb blast again at Mumbai in 2006, in which 200 more people were murdered, the roasting alive of 58 Hindu pilgrims on Feb. 27, 2002 at Godhra Railway station in India, are not isolated incidents but a part of the much broader pan-Islamic strategy to bring the entire world under the Islamic domination and thereby establish the rule of Allah all over the world.†------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------Dr. Suseelan accused the political class the world over for their willful prevarication in handling the Islamic militancy.------------------------------------------ He warned that religious bigotry and terrorism cannot be countered by dilettantism.------------------------------------------ He accused the world’s liberal intelligentsia for being downright hypocrite, suffering from stifling close-mindedness and practicing charlatanism.----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------Today, the Islamic militancy has assumed an astronomical dimension.------------------------------------------ Militant Islam is actuated by the strong desire to achieve its objectives by the process called Jihad.------------------------------------------ Jihad is the dangerous Muslim doctrine of permanent warfare against all infidels (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, etc.).------------------------------------------ Jihad is to be persistently waged until all the unbelievers are eliminated from the enemy territory and the Sharia (Islamic law) is firmly established there.------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------Some of the speakers described as to how London is being turned into Londonistan (à la Pakistan) and Europe into Eurabia (à la Arabia).------------------------------------------ The others spoke about Hamas, Palestine, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Chechnya, and Iran.------------------------------------------ But Dr. Suseelan narrated the poignant and inhuman condition of 25 million Hindus-Buddhists and Christians in Bangladesh who could be completely eliminated through violence in the next two to three decades.------------------------------------------ “The best way to protect these minorities from the jaws of death in Bangladesh is to carve out a separate nation for them on the lines of East Timor,†advocated Dr. Suseelan. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------“The Hindus in India have witnessed unprecedented barbarism at the hands of Islamic brutes since the 8th century, shortly after the new faith was founded in Arabia.------------------------------------------ Tracing India’s History, Dr. Suseelan said that in the year 712 the Governor of Iraq had ordered to bring about the destruction on unbeliever Hindus of India, ------------------------------------------ if they did not accept the rule of Allah. The merciless slaughter of Hindus continued for three days in which 26,000 men were murdered and 20,000 women were enslaved and dispatched to Khalifa, the supreme religious head of Islam in Baghdad. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------“Eleventh century also saw the barbaric assault of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni on Hindustan starting in the year 1000.------------------------------------------ He launched 17 plundering, looting and slave-taking expeditions to India.------------------------------------------ Abu Nasr Muhammad Utbi, Sultan Mahmud’s secretary, gloats in his official chronicle that after attacking Waihind in November 1001, Mahmud’s army slaughtered 15,000 fighting men in “splendid action†before capturing 500,000 men and women as slaves.----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------“At the time of India’s partition in year 1947, a non-stop reign of rape, murder and loot was unleashed against Hindu-Sikh civilian population of what was to soon become Pakistan.--------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------They were ethnically cleansed from each and every city and town. Again, in 1971 ten million Hindus were driven out from then the East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). ------------------------------------------ In 1989-1990, the 400,000 Hindus of the Indian Kashmir were given two choices by Islamic terrorists: accept Islam or leave the country.---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------“In an article dated July 24, 2006, M.A. Khan of Islam Watch (a web site by ex-Muslims who no longer believe that the Islam is a religion of peace as portrayed by many Islamists and other Islamic apologists) mentions that effective displacement of 30 million Hindus took place in 1947 and 1971.------------------------------------------ However, it is a matter of shame and disgrace that when the biggest human exodus in the world history took place in 1947 and 1971, no historian, either in India or outside India, even took a note of it.â€------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------In his forceful half-an-hour speech, Dr. Babu Suseelan squarely blamed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic theories of Dar-ul-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harab (enemy nation), the incomprehensible antediluvian Islamic religious teachings of the medieval times for the spread of suicide attacks and terrorism all over the world.------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------A more recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, “Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers†also points to the Qur’an as the source of the motivation of Islamist bombers. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------Quoting another recent study undertaken by CIA, Dr. Suseelan said that there presently are two to three percent of Muslims out of their total number of 1.4 billion who support the Jihadi terrorism.------------------------------------------ This amounts to a staggering 35 million dangerous and religiously inspired individuals trotting around the globe.------------------------------------------ Again, according to Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum, there are 10-15% of Muslims in the world, which amounts to 140 to 210 million respectively, who sympathize with the Islamic militants.------------------------------------------ If the above prognostications are to be believed, the total number of Islamic terrorists operating on this earth is more than the combined size of the armies of all major military powers today.------------------------------------------ “That is a very depressing and dangerous scenarioâ€, lamented Dr. Suseelan. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------It is about time we recognize the magnitude of danger from Islamic militancy to the entire humanity.------------------------------------------ Our mollycoddling mindset towards terrorism could create a pervasive sense of debilitation in the society.------------------------------------------ Dr. Suseelan vehemently ridiculed the so called liberal cosmopolitan intelligentsia for mumbling bromides and urged them to get rid of nonsensical twaddle.------------------------------------------ We owe a duty toward our future generation.------------------------------------------ We cannot afford to act as nonchalant spectators at this dangerous juncture in our history.------------------------------------------ He castigated the proponents of root cause theory who propound that Muslims resort to mayhem and murder because of the poverty and illiteracy they suffer from.------------------------------------------ Countering this silly argument, Dr. Suseelan said: “In the Indian state of Orissa, Hindu people earn less than one dollar a day, but they do not go about blowing themselves up or killing other innocent people.------------------------------------------ Remember, none of the 9/11 terrorists was uneducated or came from the impoverished Gaza strip near Israel†------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------At the end, Dr. Suseelan suggested that it was absolutely essential that America, Israel, UK, India, Russia and other victim nations who have extensively experienced the Islamic savagery and annihilation, should form a coalition to crush this ideology of violence and subjugation.------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------Dr. Suseelan delivered his speech with electric clarity coupled with anguishing historical facts and prescient veracity.------------------------------------------ He warmed the cockles of audience’s mind and thereby won their accolades.------------------------------------------ He was warmly praised for dishing out voluminous and stupefying data detailing enormous brutalities heaped on Hindus by Islamic militants.------------------------------------------ Many counter-terrorism experts urged Dr. Suseelan to keep them posted with all such vital information in the future also. Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, President of America’s Truth Forum expressed happiness at the participation of American Hindus in the Symposium.-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------The two-day Symposium was addressed by the following high-profile dignitaries who are frequent guests of national TV networks and are often consulted by CIA, FBI and other agencies on the question of terrorism. Robert Spencer, the Director of Jihad Watch, talked on “The West’s Misidentification of the Challenges Faced from Global Jihad.â€------------------------------------------ Dr. Bruce Teft, a founding member of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center in 1985 talked on “Islam: The Foundation of Islamic Terrorismâ€.------------------------------------------ Dr. Harvey Kushner, an internationally recognized authority on terrorism who has advised and provided training to the government agencies including the FBI, spoke about “Holy War on the Home Front.â€--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------Dr. Paul Williams, a journalist, author and former consultant to FBI spoke about “Al Queda’s Plans for Further Attacks on US Soil including an ‘American Hiroshima’â€. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------Dr. Wafa Sultan, a secular Syrian-American Psychiatrist said: “In spite of the death threats to my life, I am determined to educate the world about the pitiable conditions to which Muslim women are subjected in Islam.â€------------------------------------------ Walid Shoebat, a reformed PLO terrorist said that it was virtually impossible to reform Islam. The other speakers were:------------------------------------------ Joe Kaufman, the Chairman of Americans Against Hate,†James Gilchrist, and Paul Schiffer. Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who talked about “A Journalist’s Perspective of Al Queda’s Threat to the West and the Mindset of Osama bin Laden,†was a little bit uneasy at seeing a group of American Hindus exposing Pakistan’s reprehensible agenda in the presence of very influential American leaders.---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- .----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- STOP THE INSANITY In WWII we did NOT ALLOW Italians, Germans and the Japanese to enter The USA. So why are we allowing These Trojan Horse (Terror CELLS) all Muslims to enter The USA in wartime? I am not saying that all Muslims are bad. I know that these Radical Islamic Terrorists will lie and deceive us to infiltrate The USA.-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- CHO THE VIRGINIA TECH GUNMAN is an evil deciple of muslim hatred. In the package that he sent to NBC he used his Arabic name A. Ishmael and a UK addressá'à writings consider him a lesser prophet. --- Do Not Be fooled. CHO THE VIRGINIA TECH GUNMAN is an evil deciple of muslim hatred. In the package that he sent to NBC he used his Arabic name A. Ishmael and a UK addressá'à writings consider him a lesser prophet.---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------The disturbing and cryptic video clips, photographs and manifesto the killer Cho Seung Hui sent to NBC News instantly reminded me of the taped testimonials suicide bombers leave behind to justify their crimes.It looked so familiar -- an angry young man dressed in battle clothing preaching a message full of hate in front of a drab background. I have seen many of these videos over the years in the Middle East.The attackers always stress a desire to battle injustice and moral turpitude; they all believe they are avengers of the righteous. The videos are also replete with religious references. Cho's message seems little different.Cryptic religious references Cho repeatedly mentions Christ, suffering and isolation. There appear to have also been references to the Koran.On the package sent to NBC, Cho uses the name "A. Ishmael." He is also reported to have had the words "Ismail Ax" tattooed or written on one arm.Ismail is the Koranic name of Abraham's first-born son. In one of the central stories of the Koran, God orders Abraham (called Ibrahim) to sacrifice Ismail as a test of faith, but then intervenes and replaces him with a sheep. Muslims reenact this story by sacrificing a sheep on Eid al-Adha (feast of the sacrifice) during the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.While it is still unclear what Cho may have intended, his repeated references to Ismail (he signed his manifesto 'Ismail Ax') has been generating a lot of attention on Arab/Islamic blog sites on the Internet.Internet speculation The Islamic Threat website said: Cho "knew exactly the significance of the name in Islam as far as blood sacrifices are concerned which leads me to think that there might have been Islamic motivation behind the madness he displayed."The Angry Arab News Service website said: "The Chicago Tribune reports that Virginia Tech University massacre perpetrator, Cho Seung-Hui, died with the words "Ismail Ax" in red ink on one of his arms. Hmmm . . . Ismail -- the Arabic name for Ishmael -- considered the father of all Arabs and a very important figure in Islam. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? Doesn't mean anything. Right. Maybe "Ismail Ax" is the name of a friend of his. Or maybe he wanted to remind himself to buy an Ax for his friend Ismail for next Ramadan. Or I'm sure we'll hear some other similarly absurd ‘explanation.’ We'll see."Cho clearly was confused and angry. His manifesto seems the same: a confusing mix of martyrdom, religion, pop culture and multimedia technology.------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- IshmaelYiÅ¡ma?êl; Arabic: ???????, Isma'il; translates as ------"God will hear" ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Judaism has generally viewed Ishmael as wicked though repentant.-------------------------------------------------- -----------------[1] Islamic tradition, however, has a very positive view of Ishmael, ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------ascri bing a larger role to Ishmael in comparison to the Bible and viewing him ------------------------------------------------------------ -------as a prophet ------------------------------------------------------------ -------and the son of sacrifice ------------------------------------------------------------ -------(according to certain early theologians whose ideas prevailed later).[1][2] The Bah ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- Since the massacre of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech, the mainstream media have obsessed over the fact the crazed gunman was able to buy a Glock in the state of Virginia. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------Little attention has been paid to the Richmond legislators who voted to make "Hokie Nation," a Middle American campus of 26,000 kids, a gun-free zone where only the madman had a semi-automatic. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien. Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would be heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------What was Cho doing here? How did he get in? ------------------------------------------------------------ ------Cho was among the 864,000 Koreans here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which threw the nation's doors open to the greatest invasion in history, an invasion opposed by a majority of our people. Thirty-six million, almost all from countries whose peoples have never fully assimilated in any Western country, now live in our midst.------------------------------------------------------ ------Cho was one of them. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------In stories about him, we learn he had no friends, rarely spoke and was a loner, isolated from classmates and roommates. Cho was the alien in Hokie Nation. And to vent his rage at those with whom he could not communicate, he decided to kill in cold blood dozens of us. ------------------------------------------------------------ What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------To intellectuals, what makes America a nation is ideas – ideas in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address and Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech. ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------But documents no matter how eloquent and words no matter how lovely do not a nation make. Before 1970, we were a people, a community, a country. Students would have said aloud of Cho: "Who is this guy? What's the matter with him?" ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------Teachers would have taken action to get him help – or get him out. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------Since the 1960s, we have become alienated from one another even as millions of strangers arrive every year. And as Americans no longer share the old ties of history, heritage, faith, language, tradition, culture, music, myth or morality, how can immigrants share those ties? ------------------------------------------------------------ -------Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in their separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher than our native born, some are going berserk here. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------The 1993 bombers of the World Trade Center and the killers of 9-11 were all immigrants or illegals. Colin Ferguson, the Jamaican who massacred six and wounded 19 in an anti-white shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad, was an illegal. John Lee Malvo, the Beltway Sniper, was flotsam from the Caribbean. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------Angel Resendez, the border-jumping rapist who killed at least nine women, was an illegal alien. Julio Gonzalez, who burned down the Happy Land social club in New York, killing 87. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------Ali Hassan Abu Kama, who wounded seven, killing one, in a rampage on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, was a Palestinian. As was Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy. ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------The rifleman who murdered two CIA employees at the McLean, Va., headquarters was a Pakistani. When Chai Vang, a Hmong, was told by a party of Wisconsin hunters to vacate their deer stand, he shot six to death. Peter Odighizuwa, the gunman who killed the dean, a teacher and a student at the Appalachian School of Law, was a Nigerian. ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------Hesham Hadayet, who shot up the El Al counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four, was an Egyptian immigrant. Gamil al-Batouti, the copilot who yelled, "I put my faith in Allah's hands," as he crashed his plane into the Atlantic after departing JFK Airport, killing 217, was an Egyptian. ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the UNC graduate who ran his SUV over nine people on Chapel Hill campus and said he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," was an Iranian. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------Juan Corona, who murdered 25 people in California, was a Mexican. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------"In our diversity is our strength!" So we are endlessly lectured. ------------------------------------------------------------ --But are we really a better, safer, freer, happier, more united and caring country than we were before, against our will, we became what Theodore Roosevelt called "a polyglot boarding house for the world"? ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------there are less than 400 Border Patrol agents along the 4,000 mile border with Canada, and less than 2,000 agents for interior enforcement. Further, there are at least 314,000 illegal aliens within the U.S. who were ordered deported (including 6,000 from the Middle East - excluding Israel) here on he loose. Those here claiming persecution include the '93 WTC bombing mastermind, and a Pakistani who undertook a shooting spree at CIA headquarters. Another entryway is through marriage - eg. Osama's personal secretary (and many others) became a U.S. citizen in '89 after marrying an American.It is estimated that one-fourth of "legal" immigrants are those who came illegally and then paid $1,000 and got someone to petition for residency.In the six months post 9/11, the Department of State issued 200,000 visas to those from the Mid-East (excluding Israel) and southern Asia. Part of that is facilitated through bribes. About 200,000 enter the U.S./year through H1-B visas (supposedly for high-tech personnel, though also allows fashion models and "essential support personnel"), over 1 million student visas/year (some provide bribes to achieve requisite grades and English proficiency scores), 11,000 enter as religious workers, and the biggest group - visitors - comprises 17 million/year.Our high tolerance for illegal Mexican immigration helps terrorists blend in, and they even helped the 9/11 terrorists obtain false identity documents. The varying, and sometimes close to non-existent standards for drivers' licenses are another major problem. Our split-personality on the topic is further reflected in NYC Mayor Bloomberg's promise to provide services to but not inform on the illegals within New York City - while the World Trade Center site was still smoking! (Previously Mayor Giuliani sued the federal government to ban enforcement of a law prohibiting local governments from banning their employees from informing the federal government about illegals.)In a chapter titled "Serial Incompetence" Malkin covers the case of Angel Resendiz ("Railway Killer") who freely entered and left the U.S. over a 25 year period while amassing convictions for trespassing, burglary, grand theft auto, etc., and being deported at least 7 times. In December of 1998 his fingerprints were found on a Houston murder victim's car. The INS was contacted for help, but failed to enter Resendiz' information into their computer system, and again they deported him. By June of 1999, Angel had killed four more before turning himself in; he subsequently admitting nine murders. Malkin also documents a general litany of INS computer breakdowns, and staff failure to use the computer systems.---------------What does it all mean? ----------- ------In a nutshell, it means this: ----------- The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.Footnotes[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 [2]. Id. at 2893 [3]. Id. at 2895 [4]. Id. at 2893 [5]. Id. at 2897 [6]. Id. at 1291 [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.Home www.EyeOnTerrorism.com
Original intent of the 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:"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."This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.Supreme Court decisions The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.For more information, see: 1. P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)2. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Illegal Aliens and American Medicine The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 (Spring 2005)3. Al Knight, Track 'anchor babies', Denver Post (September 11, 2002)4. Al Knight, Change U.S. law on anchor babies, Denver Post (June 22, 2005)5. Tom DeWeese, The Mexican Fifth Column (January 27, 2003)6. Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)7. Tom DeWeese, The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion (American policy Center)8. P.A. Madison, Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance The Federalist Blog (December 17, 2005)9. Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)10. William Buchanan, HR-73 -- Protecting America's Sovereignty, The Social Contract (Fall, 1999) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark 1898 Supreme Court case11. Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation's Future -- Part Two -- Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter, 2005) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark court case12. U.S. Supreme Court ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (Findlaw, 1884)13. U.S. Supreme Court Slaughter-House cases ('Lectric Law Library, 1873) http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case30.htmNext: Misinterpretation Home www.EyeOnTerrorism.com
Consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution Cost Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965. The Urban Institute estimates the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.1FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population - between 8.7 and 11 million. It should be noted that the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million.2,3 Using this higher number would roughly double FAIR's estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens each year!As of 2001, the cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country).10 Assuming that an average birth in the year 2007 now costs $8,000, the total cost for 363,000 anchor babies would be approximately $3 billion. Assuming the more realistic number of 726,000 anchor babies, the total cost would be nearly $6 billion. American taxpayers pay a substantial part of this cost.In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.1 A survey conducted under the auspices of the University of California, found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County hospitals are to illegal alien mothers who are in the U.S. in violation of our existing immigration laws.Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, but their citizen children qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other benefits granted to US citizens. Based on data collected in California for AFDC's “children only†cases, the California Department of Social Services estimated that in fiscal 1994-1995, 193,800 children of illegal aliens received welfare, costing $553 million.By not addressing this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing immigration law, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.Rule of Law By deliberately not addressing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress's prerogative.One Man, One Vote Congressional district reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of "one man, one vote".As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If non-citizens (illegal aliens) are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes citizens in states having relatively low proportions of illegal aliens.United States SovereigntyThe Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."8 The Mexican government recently provided dual nationality to its citizens who naturalize in the United States. No longer looked upon by their countrymen with contempt, those who emigrate (and sneak in) to the United States are seen by Mexico as advocates for its presumed territorial claims to the American Southwest. Mass immigration, while acting as an overpopulation safety valve for Mexico, simultaneously strengthens Mexico's political presence inside the United States. Mexican dual nationality serves to retain the allegiance of its citizens who become United States citizens, and to discourage assimilation - in spite of the oath of allegiance they take to America.Unconstrained illegal immigration and disregard for the rule of law are not conducive toward maintaining US sovereignty. Special corporate and political interests want all the cheap foreign labor they can get. Misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America.In April, 2005, President Bush signed the Security Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, with the stated objective of ensuring the free movement of goods and people across the US border. This treaty, never ratified by Congress, is a significant step towards the North American Union where a sovereign United States will be merely a memory.Population and environmental consequences United States population is at roughly 300 million and is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today.4 Approximately two-thirds of this population growth will be due to mass immigration - that is, immigrants, illegal aliens, and their descendents.5The United States is past the point of environmental sustainability. Scientists have noted that a sustainable population at today's consumption levels would be approximately 100 to 150 million people.6 A good and readable overview of the population-environment connection can be found at SUSPS. A visual presentation of the damage illegal immigration does to the environment near our southern border can be seen at DesertInvasion.US.Other countries The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship.It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)Millions of Americans Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted - freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.Notes and more information: 1. Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)2. Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface (Bear Stearns, January 3, 2005)3. Fred Elbel, Illegal immigration invasion numbers (DesertInvasion.US, August, 2004). Published in the Social Contract under the title How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.? (A New Methodology) (Fall, 2005)4. US Census Bureau.5. NumbersUSA.com6. SUSPS7. James R. Edwards, Jr., Two Sides of the Same Coin - The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration, (Center for Immigration Studies, February, 2006)8. Anthony Beilenson, Case for Correction By Constitutional Amendment, The Social Contract (Fall, 1996)9. US Citizenship and Immigration Services10. The Cost of Having a Baby Dr. Greenfield (Dr. Spock, July 18, 2001)Next: What can be done Home www.EyeOnTerrorism.com
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans The 14th Amendment By P.A. Madison Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies February 1, 2005We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866: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.[1]It is clear 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, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:[T]he 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.[2]Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction: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.[3]In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] 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. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and 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 to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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...[6]Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]What does it all mean?In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.Footnotes[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 [2]. Id. at 2893 [3]. Id. at 2895 [4]. Id. at 2893 [5]. Id. at 2897 [6]. Id. at 1291 [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.Home www.EyeOnTerrorism.com
Losing Control of the Nation's Future -- Part Two -- Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens The Social Contract (Winter 2005) by Charles Wood Email this article to a friend View original formatEvery year, hundreds of thousands of children are born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers. Most likely, there are over 1,000 born every day. Under current law, each one of them becomes a U.S. citizen at birth. Under the prevailing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a change would require a constitutional amendment. It is likely that this interpretation is wrong and a change may be made by statute. But one way or the other, change is imperative because current law causes serious harm to the national interest.I. Birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens causes serious harm-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------Loss of control over the nation’s future ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Any nation, if it is to continue in the form desired by a majority of its existing citizens, must be able to select which aliens will be allowed to live within its territory – and which of them will be granted full membership in its political community, with the right to vote and thereby gain a share of control over the nation’s future.Automatically granting citizenship to the children of persons who are in the United States against the will of the majority of Americans undermines this process. It takes away a part of the decision-making power from the American people, and transfers it to illegal aliens.Over time, the current rule will make it possible for what would otherwise be citizen majorities in particular areas to be outvoted by new majorities consisting in significant part of persons whose membership in the political community is derived from this rule, and thus is not based on the consent of the American people. Because of the uneven distribution of illegal aliens, such effects are much greater in certain areas of the country, such as Southern California, where large numbers of citizen-children are now adults – with the right to vote and to petition for the immigration of certain family members without limit, and each of these can in time naturalize and become voters.----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Increased number of citizens without traditional American values ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Because the parents are illegal and concerned about being apprehended, their children are less likely to participate in the wider community, learn English, and otherwise assimilate fully. If they are not fully Americanized before they reach voting age, their votes are less likely to be based on traditional American values and priorities, and more likely to favor policies opposed by a majority of other Americans.-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------Increased number of dual citizens ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Because most illegal-alien parents are nationals of countries that grant automatic citizenship to their citizens’ children wherever born, the number of new U.S. citizens with dual citizenship and dual loyalty is substantially higher now than if current law were amended. And the primary loyalty of a citizen-child of illegal aliens may not be to the United States.----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Dilution of the rights and privileges of current citizens ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------A wide range of “zero-sum†rights and privileges based on citizenship or legal residence is obtained by the new citizens without the consent of preexisting citizens, whose own such rights and privileges are diluted. Examples include not only voting power and political representation, but rights to petition for immigrants, public benefits such as government employment and services, and affirmative-action “entitlements.â€----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------Incentive for illegal immigration ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------A substantial fraction of illegal-alien mothers giving birth in this country come here so that their child is born a U.S. citizen. See, e.g., Judith T. Fullerton et al., Access to Prenatal Care for Hispanic Women of San Diego County, CPS Report, California Policy Seminar (now California Policy Research Center), University of California, Berkeley (Aug. 1993) and Rex Dalton, Born in the USA – Births to Illegal Immigrants on the Rise, San Diego Union-Trib., Feb. 20, 1994, at A1.--------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------Greater difficulty deporting the parents ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------If illegal aliens have a U.S.-citizen child, the political, if not the legal, difficulty of deporting the parents and siblings is significantly increased.-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------Higher welfare costs ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Each of the large number of children born in the United States every year to illegal aliens instantly qualifies for all of the benefits citizenship provides, including welfare and other social services. Over 40 percent of such children born in 1993 in San Diego County immediately began receiving welfare. See L. Rea & R. Parker, Illegal Immigration in San Diego County An Analysis of Costs and Revenues, State of California, State Senate Office of Publication, viii–ix, 146–150 (1993).----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Higher levels of immigration ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Many, probably most, of the hundreds of thousands of such children who are born each year petition for the immigration of relatives at some time in their life. Often it is under immigrant categories not subject to numerical limits and thus causes a real increase in total immigration. And when the immigration is in categories subject to limits, it harms law-abiding prospective immigrants abroad who would otherwise receive the visa numbers.---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------II. Counter-argument, with rebuttal Increase in illegal aliens; reduced assimilation ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Defenders of the current rule argue that the proposed change would increase the number of illegal aliens. They point out that the number of U.S.-born children who would be illegal aliens after the change is likely to be greater than the number of aliens who would decide that illegal immigration was no longer worthwhile. As a result, it is argued, the problems associated with the presence of a large number of illegal aliens – such as failure to report crimes or public health problems, or to testify in legal proceedings – would likely increase. Defenders also assert that the change would interfere with the process by which the children of illegal aliens assimilate into American society.Rebuttal – Most of these problems already exist in connection with such children. It is the immigration status of the adults in the family that is the source of most of those problems, and that status does not change when a new child, one who is a citizen, joins the family. Therefore, if current law is amended – so their new U.S.-born children are not citizens – such problems would continue, but likely not get significantly worse.With regard to the assimilation delay, that too would probably not significantly change if current law were amended, at least in the short run. More fundamentally, the limited assimilation of illegal-alien families is as it should be. It is not desirable for them to fully and permanently join American society.The national interest would be best served if the entire family returned to their homeland. And this result could actually be brought about if an adequate effort were made to enforce current laws against hiring illegal aliens and providing them most forms of welfare, and if penalties for violating immigration law were increased.But even if Congress and the President cannot, or will not, make such an effort, the current birthright-citizenship rule should still be changed – and the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens treated the same as their foreign-born siblings living here. It would be better for America to accept any problems caused by an increase in the number of such aliens than to endure the serious and increasing harm the current rule causes.----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Unfairness ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------A second counter-argument is that it would be unfair to “punish†U.S.-born children for the immigration-law violations of their parents.Rebuttal – It is neither unfair nor a punishment to refuse to allow illegal aliens to create new U.S. citizens against the will of the American people.The group whose interests it is the primary obligation of U.S. government officials to promote is the majority of U.S. citizens. Officials fail to fulfill that obligation when they continue a process that is reducing the political control that the current citizen-majority has over their nation’s future, and that is causing them so much other harm.In addition, this claim of unfairness is inconsistent with most of the country’s immigration-control policies – which can result in the deportation of a U.S.-born child’s equally innocent foreign-born siblings who similarly are young and have been in the United States most of their lives. Why is their moral claim to stay in this country weaker than that of the U.S.-born? And why does the presence in the U.S. of either of these groups of children give them a greater moral claim to a life here than millions of equally innocent children abroad? Indeed, the moral claim of the children abroad could be seen as greater – because they most likely have not had the benefit of any time in the United States, and because their circumstances are frequently much worse than those under which the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens would live if returned to their parents’ home country.---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------III. Current birthright-citizenship law may be changed by statute ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------The prevailing view is that the Constitution requires that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens be recognized as U.S. citizens at birth—and therefore an amendment would be required to change current law. In my view, this is incorrect. The Constitution neither requires nor forbids the current rule. The controlling language in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment (the Citizenship Clause) states that “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.†(Emphasis added.)The “subject to†language about jurisdiction is ambiguous. Does it refer only to formal legal authority to bring the person before a court for violations of the law? Or rather to a combination of formal authority and some degree of actual power to exercise the authority, power to bring the person to justice?Framers of the Citizenship Clause understood it to codify traditional common-law principles – under which citizenship derives from birth “within the allegiance.â€Members of Congress who wrote the Citizenship Clause believed that they were putting into the Constitution the then-existing common law, with a clarification of its application to two minorities in special circumstances, blacks and Indians.The leading Supreme Court case interpreting the Citizenship Clause, and the common law it was intended to constitutionalize, is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. (1898). The Court held that the U.S.-born child of a legal immigrant from China was a U.S. citizen at birth, and described the English common law that underlies the American rules in this area. It described the general rule and also certain so-called “exceptionsâ€(1) First, the general rule – To be born a British subject, a person had to be born “within the allegiance.†This meant born on British soil under circumstances in which there was a duty of allegiance, including obedience, on the part of the person born, and a reciprocal duty of the sovereign to provide protection. Each was considered a “compensation for the other.†To be born within the allegiance, a person had to be born under the “protection and control†of the Crown.(2) The common law contained at least two “exceptions†(A), a person whose parent was a foreign diplomat or on a foreign public ship, and (B), a person whose parent was a member of a foreign military force occupying the territory where the birth took place. Actually, these “exceptions†were not really exceptions, but rather applications of the general rule to specific factual circumstances, since the requirements of birth “within the allegiance†were not satisfied in either case – neither the duty of obedience nor the duty of protection.The Wong Kim Ark Court implied that some aliens outside the common-law “exceptions†might also not qualify for Birthright citizenship. It stated that “[s]uch allegiance and protection … were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom†[Emphasis added.] – meaning that allegiance and protection are among the attributes of the legal relationship between aliens “in amity†and the sovereign while such aliens are within the sovereign’s territory. “Amity†is defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary as “friendship, in a general sense, between individuals, societies or nations; harmony; good understanding…â€The Wong Kim Ark Court’s reference to “aliens in amity†came from Calvin’s Case (1608), described by the Court as the “leading case†on the “fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality.†A commentator recently stated that“[Sir Edward] Coke’s report of Calvin’s Case was one of the most important English common-law decisions adopted by courts in the early history of the United States. Rules of citizenship derived from Calvin’s Case became the basis of the American common-law rule of Birthright citizenship, a rule that was later embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment.†(Polly J. Price, 9 Yale Review of Law & the Humanities, 73,74, 1997)Coke (1552–1634) seems to have understood the phrase in a way that would exclude more than hostile enemy soldiers, more even than the subjects of foreign sovereigns with whom the English monarch was at war. Although it could not have been Coke’s intention to exclude from the meaning of “aliens in amity†any alien who was in England in violation of its immigration law (there were no such laws), he did make statements with an apparently similar meaning.Coke explained that an alien was either a friend (amicus) or an enemy (inimicus), and could be a friend only if there was a “league†between the alien’s sovereign and England’s. If a league existed, the alien was a friend (amicus) and could enter England without “license†of the English sovereign. The implication is that if aliens requiring a “license†came into England without one, they would be regarded as not “in amity.†Thus, their children born in England would not be born “within the allegiance.â€---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------Children of illegal aliens are not born “within the allegiance.†------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------The essential elements of common-law Birthright citizenship are not present for the U.S.-born child of an illegal-alien mother. It makes no sense to say that an illegal alien has a duty of allegiance, including full obedience, to the United States – because the duty cannot ever be fulfilled. A person cannot at the same time be both an illegal alien and obedient to the U.S.The disobedience of an illegal alien is fundamentally different from that of other lawbreakers, whether citizen or lawful alien. Except during the limited periods of time when the latter are engaged in committing particular criminal acts, they are in obedience to law. But the illegal-alien mother is disobeying the United States and its law by her very presence in the country and does so at every moment she is here. At no time does she, or can she, fulfill, even for an instant, the duty of obedience which is an essential component of allegiance.In addition, the child is not born “under the protection and control†of the U.S. Government. The mother does not receive full protection – not even that given to nonresident aliens if they are in a lawful status. For example, the protection provided to an illegal alien omits the most basic element – enforcement of the right to be at liberty on the sovereign’s territory, free to act at will within the law. With respect to the government’s control – that too is, of course, absent.Finally, illegal aliens are not “in amity†with the United States. They are on U.S. territory against the will of the American people, in a continuous state of disobedience to U.S. law, and despite the efforts of the U.S. Government to apprehend them.Thus, if the Citizenship Clause is interpreted as a codification of the common law, it is reasonable to argue that there is no constitutional requirement that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens be granted U.S. citizenship.The actual language of the Citizenship Clause is consistent with such an interpretation because the “subject to†clause requires actual power (not merely formal authority) to bring to justice.The importance of the degree of U.S. jurisdiction was emphasized repeatedly by the congressional sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment. In their view, Birthright citizenship required the U.S.-born child to be completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This meaning was necessary if one of the intended results of the Amendment was to be achieved – the exclusion of Indians still living in a tribe. They were seen as primarily subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe in their daily activity within the United States.Senator Jacob Howard, floor manager of the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.â€Senator George Williams, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, said something suggesting that the language requires more than formal jurisdictionAll persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here … to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. [Emphasis added.]Such a view is consistent with some formulations of the common-law concept of birth “within the allegiance†– which have stated that the person must be born under “the protection and control†of the sovereign. (Emphasis added.)The common-law-based rationale for denying Birthright citizenship to the children of parents who are not fully subject to the formal jurisdiction of the United States applies also to parents who are formally subject (they have no formal immunity), but cannot be “brought within the reach of the power of the court†(in the words of Senator Williams).The rationale is this: if an individual has no duty of obedience (or the duty does not exist in any meaningful sense, because full obedience is impossible because of the nature of the individual’s status under the law), if the individual is not answerable for disobedience within the sovereign’s territory, then the reciprocal duty of the sovereign to provide protection is not in effect – and thus essential elements of allegiance are not present neither a duty of obedience by a subject, nor control and a duty of protection by a sovereign.Therefore, the jurisdiction over an individual which is required in the Citizenship Clause may include the sovereign’s having more than some minimum degree of power to bring the individual to justice for violating the law.This interpretation is consistent with the meaning of the words “subject to.†Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “subject†in its adjective form as “being under the power and dominion of another…†This definition refers to an actual (not merely theoretical) control relationship between a controlling party and a party controlled.Finally, it would be reasonable for Congress to conclude that illegal aliens are not “subject to†the jurisdiction of the government in a manner similar to citizens and lawful aliens, and that the federal government’s actual power to bring illegal aliens to justice is insufficient to satisfy the constitutional standard. It seems indisputable that, in general, such power is less than the government’s power with respect to other violators of the law. The ongoing violation committed by illegal aliens – presence in the United States without legal authority (for which they may be deprived of their liberty and then deported) – is not visible in the way unlawful actions are, although the violation continues for every instant illegal aliens are in the country. When it is only their unlawful status (not their actions) that distinguishes them from the law-abiding persons around them, the probability of their being apprehended and brought to justice is not equivalent to that for other lawbreakers.------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------IV. Counter-argument, with rebuttal Required jurisdiction is purely formal. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------The most frequent counter-argument is that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof†means formally liable to prosecution for violating U.S. law. It means that the government has the legal authority to prosecute, not necessarily the actual power to do so. In this view, any person present in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction – whether citizen or alien (resident or visitor) – unless the person has formal immunity, the kind of immunity a diplomat has.Proponents have cited Wong Kim Ark and several earlier cases for the proposition that the common law conferred citizenship upon all persons born within the territory of the United States, unless one of the traditional exceptions applied.Rebuttal – None of the cases that proponents cite involved an illegal-alien parent, and hence none of the holdings of these cases cover the citizenship of their U.S.-born children.Most of the cases were decided before enactment of the first federal immigration statute that made the presence in the United States of certain aliens unlawful. As a result, unqualified statements made in such cases – referring, for example, to “all persons†or “every person†born in the United States – could not have been understood to cover them. In Wong Kim Ark the alien parents were in lawful status. Therefore, statements in the Court’s opinion asserting that the U.S.-born children of all aliens are citizens at birth, unless one of the common-law exceptions applies, are not authoritative or binding.The framers of the Citizenship Clause did not choose language that expressly excludes specific groups. Instead, they chose abstract general language which they believed excluded Indians still living in tribes, as well as the persons covered by the traditional common-law “exceptions,†but which may reasonably be read to exclude other groups also.------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------Jurisdiction requirement is the same as in Equal Protection Clause. ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------The second major counter-argument is based on the fact that the Equal Protection Clause contains a jurisdictional requirement with similar language. Its proponents argue that persons “within [a state’s] jurisdiction†for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause must be “subject to the jurisdiction†of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause. Therefore, they argue, because illegal aliens are covered in the Equal Protection Clause, they must be covered by the jurisdiction language of the Citizenship Clause. Proponents cite a footnote from the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case of Plyler v. Doe (1982) in which Justice Brennan quoted, with approval, a statement to that effect in the Wong Kim Ark opinion.Rebuttal – Wong Kim Ark did not concern illegal aliens, so the quoted statement, as applied to illegal aliens, was not part of the holding in the case. Justice Brennan provided no other support for his view beyond citing a 1912 treatise-writer, whose assertion, as described by Brennan, about the common-law Birthright citizenship rule’s “historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance†is quite misleading. The “if at all†phrase questions the significance of what has been a central element of the common law in this area – â€birth within the allegiance.†Finally, the view Justice Brennan expressed in the Plyler footnote was not a part of the Court’s holding in the case. The holding did not depend on the Citizenship Clause’s jurisdiction language being as comprehensive as that in the Equal Protection Clause. For all these reasons, Brennan’s Plyler statements on this issue are neither binding nor convincing.There are, moreover, good reasons for believing that persons covered by one clause are not necessarily covered by the other. Birthright citizenship is like a “zero-sum game.†Additional citizens dilute the political power, and other rights and privileges, of preexisting citizens. This is not the case with equal protection. The possession by illegal aliens of the fundamental right to equal protection of the laws does not adversely affect the equal-protection right of citizens and lawful aliens. Furthermore, the common-law histories of the two clauses are entirely different.-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------V. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------The current birthright-citizenship rule is harmful in many ways, but its most harmful and dangerous impact is to reduce the political power of current citizen-majorities. If the current rule is maintained, and illegal immigration continues to grow and spread to new areas – especially if it is combined with the current practice of counting illegal aliens in the census for apportionment – the decline in such political power will be increasingly likely to make a significant difference in legislative votes at the national and state levels, and in electoral votes for President.This process threatens the ability of the majority of Americans today to ensure that political control at every level of government will always remain with them and their descendants – plus those persons, and only those persons, to whom they have given their consent to join the American political community.At stake is whether or not the current majority of Americans will have the democratic right to control the nation’s future – including, most fundamentally, whether the composition of the American people will be determined solely by them or instead will continue to be influenced to a significant degree by individuals whose very presence in this country is against the will of most Americans and against the law enacted by their representatives.Every week, thousands more children of illegal aliens are born in this country, and each is now granted citizenship. The political impact of such individuals increases greatly when they reach voting age and when they begin to petition for the legal immigration of their spouse and their blood relatives, each of whom can naturalize, and hence vote, and each of whom can petition for additional immigrants, who may also become citizens and voters.The needed change can likely be accomplished by statute. But if not, then a constitutional amendment should be pursued until ratification is achieved.--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Charles Wood was Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, 1995-97, 1985, 1987-82; Special Assistant, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice, 1986-89. This article is adapted from a larger paper, “Losing Control of America's Future – The Census, Birthright Citizenship, & Illegal Aliens†published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Spring 1999), describing the harm caused by the current policies of counting illegal aliens in the Census and granting citizenship to their U.S.-born children – and arguing that Congress has the Constitutional authority to change these policies. A copy of the paper is available at www.thesocialcontract.com/archives. Answering Our Critics----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------Contact us via our online form or e-mail. Or phone us toll free at 1.800.352.4843.--------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------Subscribe to The Social Contract quarterly journal: Click HERE.------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------Action Alerts and Site Updates List (i.e., yourname@ yourISP.net) Subscribe Unsubscribe------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------Order a Back Issue of The Social Contract Journal! Click HERE! Main | Journal Archives | Bookstore | Related Sites | About Us | Contact Us Answering Our Critics © 2000-2005 by The Social Contract Press www.EyeOnTerrorism.com
What does it all mean?In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.Footnotes[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 [2]. Id. at 2893 [3]. Id. at 2895 [4]. Id. at 2893 [5]. Id. at 2897 [6]. Id. at 1291 [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.Home