Close Menu
    Sunday, May 31

    Abusing The 14th Amendment To Beat Trump & Birthrights For Anchor Babies?

    Team_NationalNewsBriefBy World Economy No Comments7 Mins Read


    A U.S. judge on today blocked President Donald Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order that prohibits the Trump administration, at least for now, from enforcing the order, which Trump signed hours after taking office on Monday. The judge remarked: “This is blatantly unconstitutional order.” 

    Scott Dred (1795–1858)

    This was a case brought by the attorneys general of states that love illegals – Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington state. Trump’s order stated that the federal government does not automatically recognize birthright citizenship for children who are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. Trump’s position is obviously based on common sense that the original intent of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was not a loophole for illegal immigrants but to declare citizenship for all the slaves AFTER the outrageous ruling in Dred Scott, who was an African-American slave that asked a United States Circuit Court to award him his freedom because he and his master had resided in a state (Illinois) and a territory (Wisconsin Territory) where slavery had been banned. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the court, held that Scott, as a person of African ancestry, was not a citizen of the United States and, therefore, had no right to sue in federal court.

    –

    This is the problem with the law. We enact a law for some basic intent, but then prosecutors will twist that law around to win a case. Take laws for child molesting. They define the age to be 18, so a 17-year-old is a child. There are cases where a boy who is a senior in high school has been charged criminally because the father of a daughter who was 17 did not like her high school boyfriend. So, he is sent to prison as a child molester with that label for the rest of his life. That was obviously NOT the intent of the law. People would be shocked that 35% of sex offenses are committed not by adults but by minors. Although those who commit sex offenses against minors are often described as “pedophiles” or “predators” and thought of as adults, it is important to understand that a substantial portion of these offenses are committed by other minors who do not fit the image of such terms.  Some countries define this by the percentage difference in age targeting adults, not high school where the senior is 18 but a freshman or junior is under this age of 18.

    –

    Here, too, the framers of the 14th Amendment were not looking to grant citizenship to illegal aliens. The whole illegal alien status really began to emerge with socialism. People came to America previously for the land of opportunity – not a free ride. The 14th Amendment was primarily to secure the rights of the slaves that had been free and to overturn Dred Scott, making them citizens regardless of race.

    14th Amendment birthright section 1
    The amendment to the constitution, ratified in 1868, developed after the Civil War to ensure that slaves could become American citizens. Today, the law is abused by those who illegally migrate into the country. The grey area surrounding this issue is the basic “intent” behind any law. All laws are to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the legislative intent for which they were originally enacted, as revealed in the Congressional Record prior to the passage. The passage of no amount of time can change the original legislative intent of a law. Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out our legislative purpose. Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938). Judges are supposed to be bound to interpret the  Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted. Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 244, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895).
    Mill John Stuart Legal Persecution mills
    This failure of judges to rule in this manner is commonplace, and it has led to a lot of legal persecution in which prosecutors twist the word to fit their objective. I recommend reading the work On Liberty of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). You will get a sense of how bad our legal system has become. We have witnessed the abuse of cases against Trump desperately trying to fit the words to anything he had done.

    –

    Yet here is another problem. Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington state have brought this case in one of the worst liberal states in the country where they knew they would get the decision they wanted. It is known as forum shipping – another serious legal abuse of power. So here we have four state seeking to use a LEFT-LEANING state to impose their dictatorial view upon the entire nation. This stands in contrast to the very power to amend the Constitution and the mode of exerting it are dealt with in Article V, which reads:

    –

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    The inconsistency here is that we can amend the Constitution and it need not be unanimous. Still, then all states must comply with the will of the majority – not very democratic. Yet, here, four states can effectively abuse the Constitution and a LEFT-LEANING state to force their will upon the whole, which cannot even be done by amending the Constitution.

    Only 33 countries currently offer unrestricted birthright citizenship, mainly in the Americas. However, people do not line up at their borders to enter and give birth there since they do not offer free healthcare and housing as Biden did. Other countries place restrictions, usually requiring one parent to be a citizen already, often referred to as jus sanguinis (the right of blood). Jus soli (“right of the soil”) permits citizenship based on the land in which the child is born.

    –

    The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that at least 300,000 children are granted birthright citizenship in the US, composing 7.5% of all births annually. It is estimated that this costs taxpayers over $2.4 billion annually. This data was collected before Biden opened the borders. Illegal migrants may receive benefits on behalf of their birthright or anchor baby. Taxpayers pay at least $6.7 annually just on Medicaid for these children. Legal migrants are not afforded these rights, and Trump is correct in saying there is an incentive to enter illegally since the government provides funding.

    –

    The 14th Amendment no longer holds true for its original intent. America is broke — we cannot afford to sustain our own citizens or infrastructure, and the migrant crisis has become a massive burden on taxpayers. What is the answer? Shall we hold the 14th Amendment to its original intent or allow prosecutors to manipulate the words to score victories?



    Source link

    Keep Reading

    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.