HEY, WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?
Governor
Brown of California
has made it possible for illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. In many places a driver’s license is all that’s
necessary to prove you are who you are…and that means you could probably
vote. Extrapolating that it means that
thousands, maybe millions, of illegal aliens will be voting in the next
election for President of the United
States.
They will consider who made it possible and vote for that person’s
party…in other words many, if not all, those illegal aliens will be voting
Democrat. That would automatically
negate every single vote cast in the state of California, unless and until they come up
with a foolproof method of discerning who is and who is not legal.
As
with any estimate of how many illegal aliens there are in this country now, the
guess for California
is about 3 million…which is a pretty good block of voters by itself, and then
when you add in the Democrats already registered there, it presents a very
sizable chunk of pre-determined votes.
It could be that these illegals are not permitted to vote in a national
election, but I’m not sure that any serious effort would be made to eliminate
them. To the best of my knowledge, no
other country allows non-citizens to vote in their elections…so why do we? The answer is simple, it’s a strategy to
build the Democrat base. A
simple-but-effective strategy.
Immigration
is always a hot-button political issue, and no more so than in the months
leading up to a presidential election. From sanctuary cities to Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to birthright citizenship, what can and should be
done to fix our current system is on the forefront of the minds of many
politicians and voters. . It has long
been accepted by many people that the Constitution automatically bestows
citizenship on anyone born on United
States territory, even if the parents of
that child are illegal immigrants. Scholars, however, have questioned whether
this is so, and critics of birthright citizenship believe that it encourages
foreigners to come to America, legally or illegally, so that their future
children can become U.S. citizens, along with all the benefits that citizenship
confers, simply by being born here.
The dispute has consequences,
because if those who believe that the Constitution provides for birthright
citizenship are correct, it would require a constitutional amendment to change it. If
they are wrong, then Congress could simply pass a statute declaring that the
children of illegal immigrants who are born in this country are not
citizens. Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, which 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.” There is no question that this section was meant to overturn the
Supreme Court’s opprobrious and infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford
(1857), in which a majority of the Court held that slaves were property and
that black people (even those who were not slaves) and their children could
never be citizens even if they were born in this country. After ratification of
the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship would no longer be denied to someone
because of his or her race or ethnicity.
The
section makes no reference to the alien status of the parents of the child, and
many believe that the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines the rule of citizenship
defined by birthplace, rather than the rule of citizenship defined by blood; in
other words, citizenship defined by the parents’ citizenship, which is still
the rule in many countries. There is also the curious phrase “subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.” Some scholars argue that this language excludes the
children of aliens from citizenship because they owe allegiance to another
nation and are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, at least
as that phrase was understood in 1868, a time when, unlike today, there were no
restrictions on immigration. Supporters of birthright citizenship contend, on
the other hand, that this phrase means only that such aliens be governed by
American law when they are in this country, excluding only a small number of discrete
categories of people such as the children of foreign diplomats and invading
enemy soldiers who are in, but at war with, the United States.
In 1868, this list also included
the children of Native Americans living on tribal lands who were considered semi-sovereign
people, but in 1924, Congress passed a law granting them citizenship. In United
States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court held
that a child of Chinese parents born in San Francisco
was a citizen who could not be barred from re-entry into the United States
under the xenophobic Chinese Exclusion Act. In that case, however, it was clear
that the Chinese parents were lawful, permanent residents of the United States
at the time their child was born.
Opponents of birthright citizenship claim that the parents in that case
owed their complete allegiance to the United
States, not China, but that the same would not
be true for the children of parents who are not lawfully present in this
country or who are only temporary visitors at the time of the birth. Which side is right? My friends, it’s past the time that this
business about “anchor babies” is looked at again.
No comments:
Post a Comment