The Immigration Debate - part 2 - The Constitutional Perspective

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There is a well known and completely ignorant understanding of a biblical quote in the public vernacular that claims ‘money is the root of all evil’. A righteous claim, perhaps, but not at all properly quoted, let alone in proper context. The line in the Bible is as follows: ‘FOR THE LOVE OF money is the root of all evil”. A completely different message conveyed when spoken correctly.

The abuse of language and context is currently what is poisoning the necessary debate on immigration reform. It is troubling when the Attorney General of the United States, sworn to uphold, protect and defend the United States Constitution, is quoted as follows during an April 24th speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity."

Before delving into just how ignorant is this statement, the language of the issue needs to be clarified.

An ‘alien’ is defined as a non citizen of the United States. There are resident aliens, non-resident aliens – there are several delineations, but all ‘alien’ does is to properly convey that the individual is NOT a citizen.

There can be no such thing as an ‘illegal’ immigrant. Immigration is, by definition,  a legal process, and immigrant the legal status. The nonsense of lamenting the term ’illegal immigrant’ as somehow racist or worse ’insensitive to the individual’ is pointless and does nothing but add liberal guilt to the equation. There cannot be any ‘illegality’ associated with the process. What there should be is assigning the legal term of ‘defendant’ to one who breaks the law. An alien in this country without proper legal status is a criminal. It is that simple.

There are many of the political and media class who attempt to invoke the fourteenth amendment to bolster their argument about citizenship.

They are either ignorant, lying, or stupid, for it is obvious they have never read it, or understand its intent.

To clarify the point in an uambigous and direct manner, here is the complete amendment. 

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The 14^th was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States.

That was the intent – to afford citizenship to former slaves. It was not intended to allow what are called ‘anchor babies’ – a child born in this country bestows instant citizenship upon its parents and immediate family.

The reading of the amendment is unambiguous – it was part of Reconstruction. Note the sections relative to ‘rebellion’ and ‘insurrection’. This amendment was intended to address the issues raised by the secession of the south. That explains the Section 4 relative to the ‘validity of the national debt’ not encompassing the debt incurred by the South after secession.

Taken in context, the amendment is clear as to its rationale for being

(Part 2 of this post will address the political folly of the ignorant as demonstrated by Attorney General Holders’ comments noted above).