Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Citizenship for Millstone Babies Must Be Ended and CAN Be By Executive Order

Citizenship for Millstone Babies Must Be Ended and CAN Be By Executive Order
By Hap Cluff, FallacyReports.com Posted 20 Nov 2018

A Response to Sam Bigelow, Prof Frederick Gedicks, and others quoted in the article: “Ending birthright citizenship via executive order a ‘fringe theory’”
Page one in the BYU Universe 6 Nov 2018

The number one question I would ask of any clear thinking American, “How could anyone imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?”(1)

Members of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ claim that the “clear thinking” founders of our country were inspired by God and the Constitution is a sacred document.

The 14th Amendment (1868) was specifically for free blacks. Even Indians where not included.

It was never “...intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.”(1)

“The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”(1)

It took the “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924" (56 years after the 14th) to confer them citizenship. “Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?”(1)

The Supreme Court decision — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, clarifies that the children of legal immigrants are natural born citizens. That decision says nothing about illegal immigrants. Wong Kim Ark ruled on the children of non-citizens who were also “legal permanent” residents “domiciled” in the US. An illegal cannot meet the legal part of permanent.

Over a million (1,074,277) inadmissible or deportable aliens (aka illegals) were deported or self-deported during Operation Wetback in the 1950s. Not a single one of them made a claim of citizenship for their children unless the other parent was a US citizen because they knew it was settled law that they were not citizens.(2)

Gedicks’ use of such terms as: “fringe theory,” “flimsy authority,” and “virtually everyone agrees” reminds one of the infamous “97% of scientist agree...” (which is a hoax). Or, “4500 doctors agree a hearty breakfast –like bacon and eggs- is best” fabricated by Edward Bernays(3) (based on his uncle Sigmund's research of mind control).

Bigelow only quotes such Constitutional legal scholars as: Mia Love (who just lost), John Curtis (a former Democrat), Jenny Wilson (a Democrat and Trump Hater), and Conn Carroll (who spoke for Mike Lee, who is a scholar) however all of them missed the question. It is not about using an Executive Order (EO) to “redefine birthright citizenship” it is about reversing a bureaucratic dictate that in itself, and illegally, “redefine birthright citizenship” in 1967 and only a footnote (not law) by Justice William Brennan in 1982.

Anchor Baby citizenship was conferred by bureaucratic fiat in 1967. It can be removed by an EO since the President is the head of the entire Executive Branch and its bureaucracies.

“Gedicks also said the president doesn't have any power to alter or reinterpret the Constitution's wording and never has.” And neither do bureaucrats, or media pundits, not even a single member of SCOTUS, --that’s President Trump’s point.

Gedicks, “lawsuits would be filed almost immediately” --that is the point counselor. This EO will trigger SCOTUS to act and the President has privilege he can take something directly to the Supreme Court. It would not have to “work its way through the justice system.”

Speaking of lawsuits, why has no one ever challenged the ruling before? Mark Smith(4), author and trial lawyer, addresses this issue. In order to sue, one must be a beneficiary, why would anyone ever sue to have their U.S. Citizenship revoked?

“Gedicks said children of diplomats and occupying armies aren't considered citizens since they are under the jurisdiction of other nations.” One definition of “army” is “a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose.” According to the Associated Press (AP). Sounds like the “caravan” to me.

Speaking of the “caravan” some are carrying their respective countries flags while at the same time burning the American flag. There are reports of breaking into cars and stores and leaving a trail of trash behind. One embedded reporter stated they are chanting, “No Trump, no wall, no USA at all”(5). They blame America for stealing from their country and that is why they are poor, so they are coming to get what is theirs. Even the Pope agrees, “‘the wealthy few’ (i.e., Americans) enjoy what, ‘in justice, belongs to all’ ...including migrants.”(6)

Perhaps referring to Plyler v. Doe, which was 9-0 recognizing that illegal aliens and their children are subject to the jurisdiction of the US (one of the “subject to the jurisdiction,” is deportation). Gedicks says, “...children of undocumented immigrants are considered citizens since they are subject to U.S. law,” that’s nuts. First of all we are talking about “illegal aliens” they are not “immigrants.” Second, there is no legal ruling anywhere that agrees with that statement. Finally, just being “subject to U.S. laws and/or jurisdiction” is not of itself a qualifier, period. Children of foreign students, tourists, foreign workers, and visa overstays who became “illegal” the moment their visa expired; should be disqualified as result of their “temporary” residency status, subsequently their children should not be able to claim citizenship. Again Wong Kim Ark ruled on the children of non-citizens who were also legal “permanent” residents domiciled in the US.

Let me see if I understand the logic of Professor Gedicks. If I travel to Canada I’m subject to the laws (aka jurisdiction) of Canada. Does that make me a citizen of Canada? Or eligible to birth a citizen of Canada? Of course not.

There are only two classes of people who are NOT subject to the laws of the U.S.: Native American tribe members are subject to the laws of the Reservation where they live. Catholic Priests are primarily subject to the laws of the Vatican state, the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. Plyer also addressed this.

The law of the land when the 14th Amendment was being debated was the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which exempted both Indians and all those who were subject to a foreign power, i.e., anyone who entered the country illegally remains primarily subject to a foreign power.

“Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction;”(7a)

“And Senator Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” (i.e., under the 1866 Act, which exempted both Indians and all those who were subject to a foreign power).”(7a)

“A child born in the United States to foreign national parents was, through their parents, “subject to a foreign power” and not eligible for U.S. citizenship under the Act. That was the “law of the land” that Senator Howard claimed his amendment was “simply declaratory of.”“(7a)

Federal law—specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)—provides: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

It has been suggested that pregnant women constitute a class of immigrants that the President can block using this law. By “proclamation” kind of like an Executive Order?!

The most recent Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) states over 95 million natural born or legally naturalized U.S. citizens of working age (16 years to 65 years) do not have jobs(7). That’s over 37% of working age Americans. NOTE, “unemployment” (currently 3.9%) only counts “workers” who have looked for jobs in the previous four weeks. The 95 million have given up looking and are not counted as “unemployed.” Of those who are “employed” there are upwards of 8 million who are working part-time but want to (need to) work full-time.

There are 114 million people living in households(9) who receive means-tested (not Social Security or retirement) government assistance. Nearly 40 million Americans on SNAP fka Food Stamps(10). We must control our borders to protect our own families, and not just jobs, but from disease(11), drugs, terrorism, crime(12), and human trafficking.

Our country was built on “legal assimilating immigrants” willing to learn English, adopt the American culture, and respect our laws and borders, not just any alien who sneaked in.

We must encourage people to, “lift where [they] stand,” Dieter F. Uchtdorf(13). Stay in their respective countries and make things better. If the people who can make changes leave their own countries, the whole world is worse off.

I encourage all, while re-reading the Book of Mormon, to consider why the stories therein were preserved? It is clear, we need to understand that what was going on in Book of Mormon times is relevant to us today. What happened then is happening right now.

###

_______________________________

P.S., Just because one parent is an American, does not guarantee U.S. citizenship to the baby if born outside the U.S. Barrack Obama’s mother was a natural born U.S. citizen, his father was not a U.S. citizen. She was 19 when Barrack was born. Had he been born outside the U.S., he would not have been a natural born U.S. citizen. The law is clear, his mother needed to have lived for four (4) consecutive years inside the U.S. after age 16 to qualify.

P.S.S., Sam, did you even seek any contrary opinions for your article? Just curious as you can see there are ample resources who disagree. By not including them you appear as merely a “quote assembler” and not a reporter.

Sources:

2. Operation Wetback, May 1954 - originated from a request by the Mexican government to stop the illegal entry of Mexican laborers into the United States. Legal entry of Mexican workers for employment was at the time controlled by the Bracero program, established during World War II by an agreement between the U.S. and Mexican governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

2a. Bracero program. The agreement guaranteed decent living conditions (sanitation, adequate shelter and food) and a minimum wage of 30 cents an hour;

3. How to Control What People Do | Propaganda - EDWARD BERNAYS | Animated Book Summary, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q-3qwEDyPM

4. Mark Smith, author and trial lawyer

5. "'No Border, No Wall, No USA at All'—this is not a fringe position anymore within the Democrat party. This is a position that is embraced by a large swath of Democrat voters. This is frightening." —Dan Bongino

“No Trump, No Wall, No USA at All” Communists, socialists, antifa, and other leftist activists assembled in Washington DC for a march to commemorate May Day.

6. Pope decries that ‘wealthy few’ feast on what belongs to all
By FRANCES D'EMILIO, November 18, 2018, Associated Press
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Championing the cause of the poor, Pope Francis on Sunday lamented that “the wealthy few” enjoy what, “in justice, belongs to all” and said Christians cannot remain indifferent to the growing cries of the exploited and the indigent, including migrants.

7. Claremont University Birthright Citizenship, By: John C. Eastman & Linda Chavez, February 10, 2016 https://claremont.org/crb/basicpage/birthright-citizenship/
7a. John C. Eastman
7b. Linda Chavez

8. Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) and Why It Won't Improve
Five Reasons Why Workers Dropped Out and Won't Come Back
BY KIMBERLY AMADEO Updated November 02, 2018

9. 52.1% of Kids Live in Households Getting Means-Tested Government Assistance
CNSNews.com , by Terence P. Jeffrey, August 22, 2018, 8:49 AM EDT
“...approximately 319,911,000 people in the United States in 2016. Of these, 114,793,000 — 35.9 percent — lived "in a household that received means-tested assistance."

9. We've Crossed The Tipping Point; Most Americans Now Receive Government Benefits, Merrill Matthews, July 2, 2014, 04:45pm
“...52 percent of U.S. households—more than half—now receive benefits from the government...” https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/07/02/weve-crossed-the-tipping-point-most-americans-now-receive-government-benefits/#74b122e63e6c

10. Food Stamps Charts, by Matt Trivisonno
“...number of Americans receiving food stamps as reported by the United States Department of Agriculture. As of the latest data released on October 5, 2018 the total is 38.9 million, which is more than the entire population of Canada.”

11. Yes, Unvetted Illegal Caravans Threaten Public Health
By Michelle Malkin • November 1, 2018 05:43 AM

12. Trump is right to stop illegal alien caravan instead of rolling out welcome mat
Brandon Judd, Opinion contributor Published 4:00 a.m. ET Oct. 29, 2018 | Updated 6:36 p.m. ET Oct. 29, 2018 USA Today
“Fully 74 percent of the 143,470 suspected illegal aliens ICE arrested for removal proceedings in 2017 had criminal records, including almost 10,000 sex offenders and more than 1,500 convicted killers.”


NOTES:
A very comprehensive discussion of both sides was done by Claremont:
Birthright Citizenship(7), By: John C. Eastman & Linda Chavez , February 10, 2016

Lindsay Graham Seconds Trump Proposal to End Birthright Citizenship
South Carolina Republican has long been active in bipartisan immigration debate.

Birthright Citizenship “Jus soli” meaning "right of the soil" – Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants. No European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.

Ending birthright citizenship via executive order a ‘fringe theory’
By Sam Bigelow - November 6, 2018

Professor, Frederick M. Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair and Professor of Law


Hap Cluff (class of 1969) is a VP of BYU Alumni Fresno Chapter, a 5th generation Church member and a 13th generation Christian American. He has served as bishop, high councilor, ward clerk, high priest group leader, missionary, stake public affairs director, and more. He is married (going on 50 years) with 5 children and 15 grandchildren. Currently he is CFO of his son’s movie production company, has worked for 3 U.S. Presidents and as a White House Staff Assistant, was a Press Advance Representative for Queen Elizabeth II’s visit to the U.S., was event manager for the Tabernacle Choir’s visit to Virginia and Gladys Knight’s Saints United Voices tour of Virginia Beach. Former Mayor of the 6th largest city in Los Angeles County and political consultant on numerous campaigns. Ran for ASBYU President, was a Cosmo substitute, and wrote an editorial for the Daily Universe.

Hap is not an attorney, he is just a reasonably good listener and researcher.