Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Paul Ryan's Wrong (Again): Birthright Citizenship

It's unfortunate that Paul Ryan is wrong about so many things.  On the other hand, he'll soon "retire" to a lobbying slot paying high six figures and be able to live in his walled-in compound.  Walls for him, but not for Normies like us.  Thanks, Paul, you twit.

Anyhow, Mark Levin simply destroys Ryan's silly squalling about "amendments" and "congress."

The American people are being told by the political class that there is nothing they can do to prevent future waves of illegal immigrants from coming here, unilaterally declaring political and legal jurisdiction, and securing citizenship for their children. We are told that there is no recourse through our elected representatives to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining a legal foothold in this country, all because of a footnote from the most radical anti-originalist justice of this century, William Brennan Jr.

If you are scratching your head wondering how our own Constitution can be used as a suicide pact against us by foreign countries, you are not missing anything....

There is a LOT to this essay and it's not reducible to 3 grafs, of course.  Levin knows more about the Framers and their thought than anybody, especially dinky little members of Congress who rose up from McDonald's.

Following ratification of the 14th Amendment, there were a few court cases.  The one currently in force is WongThis 1898 decision overturned TWO previous decisions:

...Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins (1884). In those cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was primarily to grant equal rights to freed black slaves and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required that the petitioner for citizenship be “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” These cases excluded children born to foreign diplomats and American Indians and were quite clear that the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment would not include all children of immigrants – most of whom would have been covered by less political jurisdiction than even those born on Indian reservations, which were partially under U.S. jurisdiction....
(By the way, did you notice that the MSM coverage of this matter ran graphics of the 14th Amendment highlighting its text EXCEPT that phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Huh.  Wonder how that happened.....)

Anyhow, the Wong decision has a couple of serious negative consequences besides the utterly ludicrous 'born here, citizen here'  favored by the walled-in Paul Ryan.

...By adopting jus soli as a constitutional mandate (not just policy) for automatic citizenship based on soil, and not jus sanguinis – right of blood – all children born to American citizens abroad would not automatically be citizens, as noted by then-Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark....

...Fuller further noted in his masterful dissent that by mandating automatic citizenship for all children of immigrants – no matter the circumstances – the Fourteenth Amendment would have the power “to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject.”  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power over naturalizations.  Fuller observes that “the right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken any steps toward becoming citizens of a country is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.”...
Note again:  the Wong decision removes Congressional oversight in immigration matters.  Ryan doesn't even know that.  But hey.....he's getting out, thank God.

(By the way, the Framers desired "consent-based citizenship" and the Constitution AND the 14th reflect that.  There are some 'conservative' bloggers who don't oppose that.  They too are wrong.)

...there is a huge difference between the legal permanent resident who was the subject of the 1898 court case and the illegal immigrants of today, even if we were to fully accept the concept of birthright citizenship based on nothing more than geographical jurisdiction. The justices in Wong awarded the child citizenship because his Chinese immigrant parents were “domiciled” in America (legally, before the ban on Chinese immigration). As Prof. Eastman notes, “’Domicile’ is a legal term of art; it means ‘a person’s legal home,’ according to Black’s law dictionary, and is often used synonymously with citizenship.” Undoubtedly, those here in contravention to our laws, unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents, cannot unilaterally declare domicile in our country....

That's a difference that Paul Ryan (and the entire Democrat Party) choose to ignore, meaning that Paul Ryan just put his potato-famine forebears in the same group as ILLEGAL aliens.

Your great-grandpa should spit on you, Paul, you idiot. 

Go read the rest of the essay.  Be prepared to argue with Congress-idiots like Ryan.  It's about time he got slapped up a bit, ain'a?

No comments: