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).

The Immigration Debate - Part I - A Personal Commentary

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

{ed. note: There are two sides to any given argument, and the validity of the issue more often than not lies in a third realm. The immigration bills being formulated in Congress and being debated amongst the body politic seem to be engaged on secondary issues and are seemingly avoiding the first step on the path to understanding and resolving this issue. To provide that needed clarity, the Madison Conservative will discuss this issue over the course of two blogs. The first requires some personal history to help properly frame the subsequent constitutional argument in favor of stricter and more intelligent reform.}

I am the grandson of immigrants, both paternally and maternally. I am the product of Italian and Polish heritages. Our house celebrated the feast of the seven fishes on Christmas Eve and broke and shared oplatek on Christmas Day.

My grandparents did not demand that their new home have anything printed in either Polish or Italian. They felt themselves Americans, and you spoke English in America if you were to enjoy the fruits of your labors in pursuit of the American dream. My maternal grandparents had the opportunity to become involved in their church, and grabbed hold with both hands in that endeavour. They were involved in their community and took pride in their hard won accomplishments. They did not have hyphenated identities; they were from Poland yes, but they were in fact ‘Americans’. The only complaint I ever heard from my grandmother about anything relative to a negative against the Polish people was how the local traffic reports identified the Kosciusko (correct pronunciation, according to my grandmother -  ‘Kos-koosh-ko’ ) Bridge which spans Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. They pronounce it ‘Kah-ski-ah-sko’ and it bothered her, but only a bit.

Both sets of grandparents were bi-lingual, and my maternal grandfather served his adopted nation in uniform during World War II.

I could go on and on about my grandparents, as would any proud grandson, but I made the above notations for several reasons, in the context of this discussion. First, my love, admiration and pride in my grandparents are unparalleled und unquestioned. Any comments made with regard to them are absent any hint of condescension or embarrassment and the intent is not to negate their accomplishments or their character.

That caveat made, the bigger point is that my grandparents, especially on the maternal side, are the classic stories of immigrants to this nation.

They came in pursuit of the American dream, where they knew that one respected the law, worked hard and became an asset to their newly adopted homeland. They asked for no special treatment and expected only to be treated fairly.

I believe that they, and all those who came before them and with them would be appalled at the state of immigration in this nation today.

My maternal grandmother often questioned, when venturing into the city, why there was so much official signage and such printed in Spanish. She asked not with contempt or anger, but with genuine confusion. There were never signs in Polish, save maybe for the local butcher or other shopkeeper in the neighborhood. Looking back on it now, I am in awe that my grandmother took no particular pride in being bi-lingual. It was merely what one did in America if they wished to become an American.

My grandmother was to turn a phrase, smart as a whip, yet I do not think she was smarter than every other single immigrant in the past thirty years. Yet, we are told that the influxes of Spanish speaking immigrants need to have official documentation and signage written in Spanish, lest we be considered somehow ‘unfair’ or discriminatory. Any reasonable attempt to establish English as the official language of government is instantly decried as being racist and bigoted. How? Is not making the assertion that these new immigrants are incapable of learning English and in need of help the true racism? Again, my grandparents were smart as any, yet I find it incredible to assert that they, and their contemporaries, were any more intelligent than our current immigrants.

My maternal grandparents had six children and in the midst of the great depression – the real one – managed to provide for them without needing any manner of federal financial assistance. Again, the claim is made by the political left that any attempt to impose stricter guidelines on public assistance for this generations immigrants is harsh and cruel.

My immigrant grandparents believed in the law, and the respect for this nation and its founding. There needs to be a cohesive argument put forth by advocates for immigrant amnesty, in any form, to explain how an individual who broke the law to be here in the first place should in any way be rewarded, given that their first act in their new nation was to flout the law.

The constitutional aspects of this issue will be discussed in the next blog, but in their absence, I will presume to speak for my grandparents.

To wit:

Please explain why today’s immigrants have political interests promoting legal amnesty for breaking the law, need not be required to speak the language of this nation and why are they receiving the hard earned tax money from those who work hard, provide for their families and help to build their communities?

These are not racist, xenophobic inquiries. They are simply the questions asked by those who came here to be a part of building the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

To them, I say salute’ and sto lat!