GOP Immigration Debate Relied on False Premise

[Jim Delaney]

During the immigration give and take at last night's GOP debate in Las Vegas, CNN's Anderson Cooper somewhat patronizingly asserted that the 14th Amendment conferred US Citizenship upon anyone born in the US, clearly challenging the candidates not to question the absolute rightness of that well-established assertion. And, sadly, the candidates all dutifully and unknowingly fell into line like good little boys and girls.

Though it turned my stomach, I can't really fault the candidates for their ignorance on this issue. My guess is that neither they nor their handlers ever delved into the 14th Amendment to know any better. And, afterall, they can't be expected to be fully conversant on every possible topic that comes up.

But, the tragedy for me was that they proceeded with their immigration discussion utterly clueless to the reality that Anderson's premise was based upon incompetent and revisionist case law, totally at odds with the 14th's framers. Most disturbing of all is that the audience too fell victim to this misrepresentation as well.

For a very long time now, the conventional "wisdom" has been that, in fact and in law, any person born on US soil is automatically entitled to US citizenship. Well, folks, that's simply not true! It's a fanciful urban legend of the first order!

I can only hope the candidates and/or their staffers get up to speed on this subject before the next go-round and actually challenge that premise should it rear its ugly head again. How refreshingly sweet that would be. Of course, whether they would dare to knowledgeably challenge the premise at all remains to be seen. Sometimes it's more politically expedient to simply bow to politically correct assumptions so as not to ruffle feathers. But, who knows. Perhaps there is some spine and principle on that political stage afterall. We can certainly hope so anyway.

For those readers not interested in pursuing this topic, I will spare you a laborious rehashing of my research on this issue. But, for those of you who wish to know the truth, I am referring you all to the following two summaries at Opinerlog.blogspot.com: "Birthright Citizenship: Politics v Rule of Law" (8/14/10), and "Birthright Citizenship and Judicial Incompetence" (3/7/11). Both shed much needed light on this heretofore deliberately mangled and tragically misunderstood subject.

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

You're an amazing resource Jim. Thanks for sharing, thanks even more for being a true Patriot.

[Jim Delaney]

Many thanks, Philip, for your vote of confidence. A Pol. Sci. major, an immigration counselor and immigration program director for over 20 years, it wasn't until I retired in 2003 that I REALLY began to learn how much I DIDN'T know about Pol. Sci., the law, and the Constitution. Since my retirement, it's been a wonderfully fulfilling learning experience. And, in truth, a painful wake-up call as well.. I was amazed how little I had really known as a college kid who had supposedly "studied" the Constitution. What we had learned, of course, is what politicized jurists and their politically-motivated friends in government and academia wanted us to learn. So, I'm not surprised the overwhelming number of Americans of all stripes and academic backgrounds simply don't know what's what when it comes to the Constitution. What should be common knowledge about our Founders' clear meaning and intent just isn't. It requires a sincere interest in the subject and no small amount of quiet time to more fully appreciate the majesty and awesome perspicaciousness of our framers. Sadly, of course, revisionist case law has all but destroyed the framers' masterpiece. It will require a long, hard herculean effort on our part to restore any semblance of its original luster, its clear meaning and majesty. As time permits, what I will continue to do is to rigorously question my own as well as others' commonly held views of the Constitution. All I can say is we've taken an AWFUL lot for granted. We've been much too trusting of so-called experts! In the final analysis, however, it is WE, the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, who are the real experts. And that's precisely what the founders expected of us. I will continue to question.I just hope it does some good. Thanks again.

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Never mind the lack of techno, you are a huge researcher and stack up well against any lawyer cum jurist that I've had contact with.

The problem as you point out is that over time and the intrusion of various supreme court decisions attempting to do a 'look-back',  our constitution has lost much of it's original authority to the various groupings of supreme court judges over time.

What IS a logical alternative answer to having the supreme court decide today's issues which bump up against the edges of the original parts of the constitution? I don't know if there is a clear answer but one thing I know for sure, SOME of the clearly constitutional question issues cry for an amendment rather than a supreme court case.

But some how I don't think today's assemblages of congressional representatives are up to that task.

Can you picture Maxine Waters debating a constitutional amendment issue??? LOL

[Jim Delaney]

I am. Don't know how to do the link thing in text, so had to refer readers to the actual posts. Techno-challenged, but I am learning--ever so slowly.

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Are you the "Jim D." author of those two Opiner Summaries?