RSS

Human Interest

Children of Illegal Aliens are not Citizens

by Bill O'Connell on August 4, 2010

Share and Recommend:
Share

“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.”  — XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Well that’s a pretty bold statement.  Who am I to say that children of Illegal Aliens are not Citizens upon birth?  I say that because of the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that most people choose to ignore.  It is a two part statement.  The first part concerns being born or naturalized in the United States and the second part states that you must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  It’s not either or, the requirement is that both conditions must be met.

We have in the news talk about Lindsey Graham introducing a new Constitutional Amendment to bar children of illegal aliens becoming citizens upon birth.  I don’t think that step is necessary.

Let’s look at the history.  The infamous Dred Scott decision said that no black of African descent could be a citizen of the United States, even if they were freed blacks.  After the Civil War Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which stated:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Prior to the passage of this law, citizenship was conferred on individuals by the states and U.S. citizenship flowed from that.  This law reversed the process.  Why?  Because some southern states could have prevented blacks from becoming U.S. citizens by blocking state citizenship.  By turning it around, they were U.S. citizens first and then citizens of the states in which they lived.  Similar language was included in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent subsequent Congresses from repealing the 1866 Act.  In the Fourteenth Amendment, the language regarding Indians was dropped.  There were some concerns raised that this would automatically confer citizenship upon Indians, who also had allegiance to their tribes.  Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship clause said this:

“Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Senator Lyman Trumbell, who was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof {meant} not owing allegiance to anybody else…subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”  Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they owed allegiance, even if only partly, to their tribes.

So if an illegal immigrant comes to the United States and has a child, is that child automatically a United States citizen?  Does this action comply with the Fourteenth Amendment?  To the first part yes, they are born here; but to the second part, no.  The mother is a citizen of her home country and is thus subject to the jurisdiction of that country, not the United States.  Secondly, she is here illegally so she is exempting herself from rather than subjecting herself to, our immigration laws.  As for the child, a newborn can hardly swear allegiance to any country, so in all cases it fails the second part of the Citizenship Clause.  Consider diplomats who may be assigned to the United States.  If the French Ambassodor’s wife has a baby while posted here, is her child not French?

Let’s take another look at the history.  In Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court held that a “native Indian who had renounced allegiance to his tribe did not become ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States by virtue of the renunciation.”  It went on to state, “The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian Tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States.”  So that would mean an illegal alien could not come to the United States and declare in the delivery room, “I renounce my allegiance to [fill in country here],” and then her child would be a citizen.  “Neither the ‘Indian Tribes’ nor ‘individual members of those tribes,’ no more than ‘other foreigners’ can ‘become citizens of their own will.”  In other words there has to be a treaty or other legislation that allows the renunciation.  Congress began extending citizenship to various Indian tribes beginning in 1870.

In a later Supreme Court decision United States v Wong Kim Ark “conferred birthright citizenship to legal residents of the United States.”  It appears that the language of the majority opinion is broad enough to allow interpretation that this also extends to children of illegal aliens, but it should only take a Supreme Court challenge or legislation to clarify the meaning of the Citizenship Clause to do what the authors of that clause originally intended.  There is no need for the arduous process of a Constitutional Amendment.  With the will of the American people as strong as it is for regaining control of the immigration situation, this could be done with a new Congress in January.

Reference: The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Regnery (Washington, 2005)

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

The Harry and Barry Show

by Bill O'Connell on July 10, 2010

Share and Recommend:
Share

Back on the campaign trail where he feels comfortable that he knows what he is doing, Barack Obama traveled to Las Vegas to stump for Harry Reid.  Harry Reid used to be a boxer and when he told Barack Obama this he said, “Barack, I wasn’t the fastest.  I wasn’t the hardest-hitting, but I knew how to take a punch.”  Based on all the legislation that has been passed since 2008 that an  overwhelming majority of the American people have opposed, makes one wonder if Harry Reid took a few punches too many.

Shortly after taking office and settling into his “bash business” mode Obama blasted businesses for their extravagant meetings held in places like Las Vegas.  Someone then whispered in the president’s ear that extravagant business meetings in Las Vegas were good for Las Vegas and Harry Reid. Oops.  And there you have the crux of the problem.

What, exactly, is government’s role to tell private companies how to spend their money?  What is the role of governments to say to a BP, “Give us the $20 billion, or we’ll take it from you,” as was attributed to Joe Biden, without first going to court?  What is the role of government to say to its citizens, you must buy this health care product or pay a fine?  Well in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, it is probably all fine and dandy, but in America?

Barack, the standup comic, used the analogy that he and Harry Reid had mud on their shoes, were pushing hard to get the car back on the road, and were making progress little-by-little and when they finally got one wheel on the pavement the Republicans want to throw the car into reverse.  Really?  I would compare it more to conservatives telling everyone to get out of the car and help push, instead of waiting for Nancy Pelosi to come back from Dunkin Donuts with free food for all the overweight union bosses jammed in the car squawking that they didn’t do manual labor.  Their contract didn’t call for pushing cars out of ditches. 

So, while this car should have been out of this ditch and well down the road by now, Harry and Barry will try to convince us that what they’re doing is absolutely brilliant; it’s just that we are too stupid to see it.  After all, it took the greatest president in history, FDR, over eight years and a World War to get us out of the Great Depression, so relax we have another 6 ½ years to go.

Imagine what would have happened if the ever resilient American economy was allowed to work on its own without all the government intervention in the 1930s.  Perhaps the Depression would have been shorter like the recession of 1920-1921, and perhaps we would not have had World War II, and Fannie Mae, and a bankrupt Social Security, and a couple of generations later all of us swimming in debt.  It’s time the tow truck of the most powerful economy on the face of the earth to come along and be allowed to do its job.  Tell Harry and Barry to go sit down on that stump over there, and watch how it is really done.  “You’re making a mess of yourselves and embarrassing the rest us.”

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Score One for the First Amendment

by Bill O'Connell on January 22, 2010

Share and Recommend:
Share

The Incumbent Protection Act, aka McCain-Feingold, took a big hit yesterday from the Supreme Court.  It is particularly timely with so many incumbents nervously eying the exits.  The McCain-Feingold bill prohibited corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within in 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election.  Those time limits probably match pretty nicely with when most people start paying close attention to elections.  So if this kind of communication is cut off, who is left with the power of name recognition?  That’s right, the incumbent and that is probably why 90% of incumbents are re-elected.

Outrage on the Left

President Obama immediately came out swinging saying it was a victory for “big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other special interests.”  He somehow overlooked the SEIU union whose president topped the list of visitors to the White House.  Unions will have unfettered communications as well.  Chuck Schumer promises hearings and the Naderite Public Citizen group is proposing a constitutional amendment banning free speech for “for-profit” corporations.  I’ll give you a moment to ponder that; a constitutional amendment to eviscerate the First Amendment.

The Momentum is Building

On April 15 it will be the first anniversary of the Tea Parties that were held across the country.  Let’s raise a cup of tea, that the Ship of Liberty that was foundering on the rocks may at last be turning it’s guns on the enemy and turning the tide of battle.  Virginia, New Jersey, a close loss in NY23, Massachusetts, the First Amendment, the momentum is building.  But let’s not forget the words of Churchill:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. — Winston Churchill

Don’t let up until we have our country back.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Olympic Smackdown

by Bill O'Connell on October 2, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

The Obama international charm offensive seems to be wearing thin.  As the first U.S. President to ever lobby to win an Olympic Games, President Obama failed in his effort as Chicago was eliminated in the first round.  The Olympic ideal was to divorce sports and politics and by doing so, promote peace by having athletes from around the world meet on a one-to-one basis and see each other as individuals rather than as the countries they represented.

Although Hitler used the 1936 Olympic Games to showcase the revitalized Germany, it was Jimmy Carter who was the first to directly use the Games for political purposes when he pulled the U.S. team from competing in Moscow in 1980, to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.  There’s nothing like punishing your own young athletes who perhaps worked a lifetime for the opportunity to compete in an Olympic Games and perhaps never get another chance.  The Soviet’s returned the favor four years later by boycotting the Games in Los Angeles in 1984.

Let’s go back to the ideal of Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who help found the modern Olympic Games:

May joy and good fellowship reign, and in this manner, may the Olympic Torch pursue its way through ages, increasing friendly understanding among nations, for the good of a humanity always more enthusiastic, more courageous and more pure.

So let’s leave the Olympic Games to the athletes and perhaps now, President Obama can get back to work.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Budget Buffoonery

by Bill O'Connell on May 16, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

It seems like a bad dream.  The man who is spending like there is no tomorrow, lecturing us on how we are spending too much money.

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

Is this a joke?  I keep waiting for President Obama to burst out laughing and say, “April Fool’s” but it’s well past April.

Two weeks ago Obama announced his budget and proposed $17 billion in spending cuts.  Let’s be generous and say he can deliver on that.  Big deal!  Twenty-five years ago, in 1984 President Reagan received a report from the Grace Commission, whom he charged with the task of finding areas of the federal government to cut costs.  The Grace Commission, led by Peter Grace, came up with $424 billion in savings in three years and $1.9 trillion in savings by 2000.  Let those numbers sink in for a moment.  In 1984, with a far smaller federal government, the Grace Commission was able find twenty-five TIMES as much savings as President Obama can find in his behemoth budget.  Unfortunately, the Democrats controlled Congress and therefore the purse strings, and scoffed at most of what the Grace Commission proposed.  Why? Less government means less power, and the statists are all about power.

Let me make a modest suggestion.  President Obama, dust off the Grace Commission Report and give it a read.  You might find some gems in there that are worth more than a paltry $17 billion in savings.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

The Inexperience Parade Goes On

by Bill O'Connell on February 13, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

As I have said before experience matters.  President Obama’s lack of executive experience is compounded by the team he has assembled.  To quote the New York Times the Obama administration has a “West Wing filled with more alumni of the House and Senate than any recent administration.”  That pretty much tells the tale.  While lacking executive experience, Obama loaded up the administration with legislative alumni, rather than executives.

Perhaps his goal was to streamline the ability to get measures passed, but there is a reason the founders created separate branches of government with different responsibilities.  When we most need an experienced steady hand on the tiller, we are verging on chaos.  It’s not good.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Freedom to Choose — A Car

by Bill O'Connell on November 22, 2008

Share and Recommend:
Share

I got the phone call around 7:30AM.  It was my wife and her voice was shaking, choking back tears.  She said she was in an accident and that the truck was totaled. Totaled? I thought to myself, my God, what kind of accident could have totaled a 2 ½ ton, hulking Ford Excursion SUV?  Before I could ask the next question, the one I didn’t want to ask, she said, “The girls and I are alright, just some cuts and bruises.” I was able to start breathing again.  She began to apologize for the SUV and I gently cut her off.  “I don’t care about the truck, as long as you and the girls are okay.”  The girls were my two daughters.

I got the location of the accident, briefly told the lead guy in my shop the situation, light on the details which I didn’t have anyway, and jumped in my truck to find them.  As I approached the accident scene, I saw an ambulance, with siren blaring and lights flashing, going the opposite way.  I called my wife’s cell phone and when I got her I asked, “Did you just pass me in the ambulance?”  She said, “Yes, we’re headed to the hospital to be checked out.”  So I made a U-Turn to go meet them in the emergency room.

The Accident

What had happened was that my wife was crossing an intersection when another car blew through the red light.  According to one witness it looked like he was going 60 mph, according to another it looked like he was going 100 mph.  They said the nearly 19′ long, 2 ½ ton vehicle with a massive V-10 engine that my wife was driving was lifted up in the air, turned 180 degrees and landed on its side.  My wife had to kick out the windshield to crawl out and guide our daughters out behind her to safety.  Thankfully it didn’t catch fire.

Why the other driver was driving the way he was we never found out.  He was pronounced dead at the scene. He was driving a Kia, a small Korean import, and before impact, I’m sure he was getting great gas mileage.  He went from leaving a small carbon footprint to leaving no footprints at all.

My wife was exonerated from any responsibility for the accident.  She and my daughters were completely innocent.  Had Ford been required only to build highly fuel efficient econoboxes, half my family would have been killed that morning.  In fact, the driver who was behind my wife said that if she had not been there, he was sure he would be dead, as it would have been him that was hit by the speeding car in her place.

Freedom to Choose

They are alive because I have the liberty, so far, to buy any vehicle that I choose and can afford.  The choices are many and I have made many choices through my life.  That is primarily because the government has not yet taken away that liberty and demanded what types of vehicles can be built and by whom.

My first car was a Toyota Celica, which I purchased just after graduating from college.  It was well made, well equipped, and although a little expensive at $4,700 brand new, I thought it was worth it.  That car served me well for 105,000 miles. When it was time for a replacement I bought a Plymouth Sapporo and I really liked it. Unfortunately, someone liked it as much and it was stolen when it had just 9,000 miles on it. It was a Chrysler Corporation car, but under the hood it was Japanese.  Still living in the Bronx, I decided to buy something functional but not too attractive.  I remember my friend’s rationale for buying a Subaru while living in the city.  None of the parts fit in a gypsy cab. My next vehicle was a Toyota Corolla.

Cars for a Growing Family

When my wife and I married in 1986 she brought to the marriage her Ford Mustang.  My Corolla was starting to get tired and my wife was pregnant, so it was time to get a new vehicle.  I bought a Ford Probe, with front wheel drive and turbocharged.  It was hard to decide if it was American or Japanese.  It was sold by Ford, built in the United States by Mazda which is a Japanese company, but Ford owned 25% of Mazda at the time.  It made for interesting conversation, but not worth losing any sleep over.

After our second child, the Probe and the Mustang were getting a little cramped.  So we said goodbye to the Mustang and hello to a Volvo 740 Turbo Wagon.  This was my wife’s dream car, owing somewhat to her Swedish heritage.

Things were going well for us and it was time to replace the Probe.  I leased a BMW M Roadster and had more fun behind the wheel of a car than I can remember before or since.  We both thoroughly enjoyed tooling down the road with the top down, turning heads as we went.  Life was good.

My wife and I had two more children and as they grew, the jump seat in the back of the Volvo was less than optimal.  In the winter the heat never seemed to reach back there and in the summer the kids in the back felt like a couple of tomato plants in a hothouse.  So it was time for our next vehicle, which for the first time I bought completely on the Internet.  It was a Ford Expedition.  I had seating for eight and room for some cargo as well, and heat and air conditioning all the way to the back.  The kids could each sit comfortably without bumping into each other and to reach out and smack someone next to them took some effort.  That vehicle served us well for a couple of years and then as they grew, our needs grew and when it was time for the next move, we got the Excursion, bigger, they didn’t come.

Meanwhile things became a little more challenging for us.  When the BMW’s lease was up, back it went.  I took over the Volvo for a while until I started a new construction related business and then I took over my father-in-law’s Chevy pick-up truck which he left for my son when he passed away.  After a year when the business got more established I put the Chevy aside for my son and the company bought a Ford F-350 Super Duty, dual wheel pickup truck with a diesel engine, which I still drive.

The Nest Starts to Empty

Then came the accident.  As soon as we got the insurance money for our totaled vehicle we immediately went out and bought another Excursion, with safety the foremost reason.  Ford wasn’t making them anymore so we bought a used one.  I wanted my family protected.

When my son moved out freeing up a seat on the “bus” and my wife started selling real estate and gas prices started to climb, we reevaluated the Excursion.  The Volvo was gone, and at twelve mpg and my wife driving a lot more, it didn’t make sense.  With five of us at home, at worst we could all fit into the pickup truck with its crew cab.  So she bought a Volkswagon EOS.  The savings on gas would make up for any differences in payments on it.  She now had her own convertible and was very happy.

About six months later, my older daughter got her license and wanted a car.  She didn’t have much money for purchasing it or for gas so she needed something economical.  Her choice, a Volkswagon Jetta.

Individual Liberty or Government Diktat

What’s the point of this stroll down vehicular memory lane?  To demonstrate that with liberty we have a great many choices.  We also have different needs at different times in our lives.  Through a free market I was able to select from a number of vehicles from different manufacturers, from different countries, to find what fit our needs.  Those companies decided what to build to suit the market.  The cars that I eventually chose, though not done conscientiously at the time, were from each of those manufacturer’s strengths, not their weaknesses.  I did not choose an economical car, when I needed one, from one of the Big Three.  We did however, choose some of their sporty models (Mustang, Probe) and their trucks (Excursion, Expedition, F-350, Silverado).

The market should tell them what cars to build and build at a profit.  Government should not require them to build six or eight cars that they have to sell at a loss for each vehicle they can sell at a profit, to meet some government mandate such as CAFE standards. As the market causes fuel prices to rise, the market will react with increased demand for more fuel efficient cars.  We should be able to choose when that works best for us.  If we have a distance to commute, we will more inclined to factor fuel efficiency into the equation.  However, if we want to travel in luxury two miles to our favorite restaurant, who cares if the car that gets us there only gets 8 mpg?  Many families have more than one car for that very reason.  Who is some government bureaucrat to tell us what we can choose among?

This Thanksgiving I can sit down with my family, and be thankful that I had that choice, and I can hug each one of them and pray it stays that way.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (3)

Comment on Adelman Article — Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama

by Bill O'Connell on October 26, 2008

Share and Recommend:
Share


I watched every debate and I have been following this campaign closely still no one can point to his accomplishments. When interviewing a job candidate, you look at their resume, to see if what they have accomplished in the past would give an indication of what they will do in the future. Any job candidate can talk a good game about what they are going to do, but what experience of accomplishments can you draw on to validate their claims. But you can’t give me one accomplishment, other than to shoo me away to go read his website. Why does it take $600 million to make the case for Obama if it is such a slam dunk?
More on Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Obama’s Tax Plan — Smoke and Mirrors

by Bill O'Connell on October 21, 2008

Share and Recommend:
Share

We’ve been hearing for a while about how Barack Obama is going to give 95% of families a tax cut, but at the same time we hear that some 40% do not pay income taxes.  So how does that work?

Today, Obama added some clarification by saying that although some people may not pay income taxes, they do pay all kinds of taxes.  All right, so how does his plan work?  Anyone who has a job pays a 6.2% payroll tax that goes for Social Security.  Senator Obama is proposing a refundable tax credit (meaning you get it even if you have no tax liability) of 6.2% of wages up to $8,000, which equates to $500 and if you are married up to $1000.  So here’s the twist, what this is really is a credit against Social Security taxes.  But it is political suicide to suggest that you are actually going to take money out of the Social Security trust fund, when that fund is a financial ticking time bomb.  So let’s call it an income tax rebate, even though they don’t owe any income taxes to rebate.  Are you keeping up with this?  If not, Andrew G. Biggs can spell it out in greater detail in his blog.

To sum it up:

  • Biggs says it’s technically not welfare because it is a refundable income tax credit to compensate for payroll taxes.
  • If Obama wants to cut payroll taxes he should cut payroll taxes, but then again he wants to get elected and cutting payroll taxes would end that quest in short order.
  • If Obama were to be honest and say he wanted to cut payroll taxes, there’s probably not may people who would agree with him especially when it is projected to cost $710 billion over ten years.

Are you listening, seniors?  And that means you, Baby Boomers, who will soon be senior citizens.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

When is a Death Threat Not a Death Threat?

by Bill O'Connell on October 19, 2008

Share and Recommend:
Share

The old adage goes, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make any noise? I guess today you could say, if a death threat is made toward Barack Obama at a McCain rally and the Secret Service agents who were present neither heard it nor can find anyone who did, did the threat really happen?  If you are holding a deck full of race cards, apparently so.

Race has overshadowed this campaign from the moment Barack Obama won his first caucuses.  The interesting twist is that those assumed to be the real racists in America, conservatives and by extension all Republicans, have scrupulously avoided any discussion of race whatsoever.  The ones who can’t stop talking about race are those on the left.

By continually bringing the subject up and the keeping the whiff of racism in the air, they hope to force those who fear being called racist to vote for Obama just to prove they are not racists!  Has John McCain given any speeches that brought up Obama’s race?  However, after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright blew up in his face, Barack Obama went on to give a major speech in Philadelphia on race in America (A More Perfect Union).

What prompted the speech was the anti-white, anti-American sentiment expressed by Obama’s minister.  In that speech Obama said that despite the positive and historic start to his campaign, race crept in.  “We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary.”  Wasn’t that Bill Clinton, a liberal Democrat, who was accused of that?  He went on to describe his candidacy as seen by some as, “the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.” it’s pretty self-explanatary who’s talking about race here.  In another speech Obama talked about how he looked different than the Presidents whose faces were on our currency.

Congressman John Lewis, a hero of the Civil Rights movement, compared McCain and Palin to George Wallace.  Based on what?  Personal attacks, of course.  What were the nature of these personal attacks?  Well the Republicans said that Barack Obama was lying about his relationship with Wiliam Ayers.  I fail to see that as a personal attack.  Obama has hardly been forthcoming about his relationship with Ayers and only reveals another piece of the puzzle when he is forced to do so.  At first Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhod, but as more and more facts were revealed about the extent of their relationship, Obama would release another “clarification” such as, yes they served on the same board, but seldom met.  How is calling Obama on this considered a personal attack and where is the racism?  If you want to know what a personal attack feels like, ask Sarah Palin.

Now Sarah Palin is being attacked as a racist because she uses the terms “Joe six-pack” and “Hockey Mom.”  Apparently because blacks don’t play much hockey or drink six packs of beer, it is really a code word for “whites only” rather than meaning average Americans.  I guess to be politically correct she should should say, “Hockey Moms, Basketball Moms, Football Moms, Cricket Moms, Soccer Moms, Badminton Moms…”  and I don’t even want to get into the favored adult beverage of minorities for fear of that being a racist stereotype in and of itself.  I’d rather listen to a speech that has a good cadence and is well written and delivered than something leaden that touches all the politically correct bases.

The latest race card drawn from the bottom of the deck is the death threats at McCain and Palin rallies.  The U.S. Secret Service was unable to corroborate anyone shouting out “kill him”.  But that hasn’t stopped the Obama camp from playing it for all it is worth.  Why would they do that?  One reason would be to get some independents to move his way out of sympathy and guilt.  Another would be to keep those who are in his camp who are getting cold feet to stay in his camp rather than going over to the racists.  I thought the term was Commander in Chief, not Manipulator in Chief.  How do you feel?

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

Next Entries →

© 2010 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.