Mobile, Alabama: Donald Trump meets with some 30,000 fans wearing shirts printed with his smiling face and holding ‘Mobile for Trump’ signs printed in red, white, and blue. (PHOTO: MARK WALLHEISER/GETTY IMAGES)
Since Donald Trump released his 3-point plan to deal with the serious issue of illegal immigration, we have heard and, up until now, tolerated some real whoppers. Media pundits, lawyers and all around nay-sayers are on national television doing what they do best–lying to you.
Jorge Ramos, the pro-open border advocate from Univision, said it was “impossible” for the most technologically advanced civilization in human history to build a wall on the U.S. Mexico border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. A simple historical comparison reduces his claim to the level of intellectually feeble. The ancient Chinese constructed the 5,500-mile Great Wall of China to protect themselves from Mongol invasion, nearly 3,000 years ago. Worth noting, a new archaeological survey done by China’s State Administration of Cultural Heritage said the Great Wall is more than double the length initially estimated.
Yet, even if we concede initial estimates are correct, Jorge Ramos says it is “impossible” for the U.S. to secure the roughly 1,954 mile-long border from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, a distance less than half that of the Great Wall.
In an effort to be fair, let’s address coverage by the allegedly conservative Fox News Channel, from both their online reporting and cable television programs. We have five examples of either ignorance or dishonesty coming out of Fox News reporters, anchors, commentators and, we are going to demolish each of them in one fell swoop.
Example 1
Native-born children of immigrants –even of those living illegally in the U.S.–have been automatically considered U.S. citizens since the adoption of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment in 1868.
— ‘Trump addresses largest crowd of presidential campaign while in Alabama,’ by Junior Reporter Kyle Rothenberg, published Saturday August 22, 2015 on FoxNews.com
Example 2
And the amendment has already withstood a Supreme Court test. In 1898, the high court ruled that San-Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark was a citizen despite being born to parents of Chinese descent living in the U.S.
— ‘Trump’s call to end abuse of US birthright citizenship divides GOP field, legal experts,’ by Joseph Weber, published Saturday August 22, 2015 on FoxNews.com.
Example 3
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.
— Judge Andrew Napolitano, interview with LAWYER and Fox News anchor Shannon Bream, who covers the Supreme Court!
Example 4
It’s been around for a hundred and fifty years. It’s a very short conversation.
— Charles Krauthammer, during exchange with Laura Ingraham on ‘Special Report’ Friday August 21, 2015.
Example 5
The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American! You want me to quote you the amendment? IF YOU’RE BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!
— Bill O’Reilly, interview with Donald Trump on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ on Tuesday August 18, 2015.
Each of these statements, claims, assertions–or, whatever you want to call them–are entirely, incorrect. In fact, they are so grossly incorrect on both historical and legal grounds, it is almost unbelievable that some of them came from supposed legal experts (Judge Andrew Napolitano and Shannon Bream), and a former history teacher turned-historian-turned-cable TV anchor (Bill O’Reilly).
In fact, native-born children have NOT “automatically” been granted citizenship “since the adoption” of the amendment in 1868, as Mr. Rothenberg, a member of the “Junior Reporter program” reported. Perhaps it is unfair to be too hard on Rothenberg, considering associate reporters and senior editorial staff are no better. After all, Weber claimed the “amendment has already withstood a Supreme Court test,” citing “San-Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Why is this such a terrible journalistic failure? Because in this divided 5–4 opinion, which was heavily criticized in the Yale Law Journal, the Supreme Court reluctantly granted citizenship to a child born to legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants. Further, the ruling recognized various exceptions, including the one pertaining to diplomats. Disgracefully, not only did Mr. Weber fail to mention these important distinctions, but he was really trying to pass off a case that isn’t analogous to the conversation as relevant jurisprudence.
The 14th Amendment also had nothing to do with native Americans, as Judge Napolitano and numerous others have asserted. In 1886, roughly 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, a native American who argued birthright citizenship, lost at the Supreme Court. That’s because the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to deal with slaves who were born in the post-slavery United States, and certainly did not pertain to children born to illegal foreigners.
While attempting to calm skeptics’ fears regarding the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment, reassured lawmakers the language sufficiently excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” That is obviously why the high court DID NOT rule in favor of John Elk.
Nevertheless, even if the high court did rule in favor of birthright citizenship in a relevant case–as Weber, Napolitano and Mr. O’Reilly have feloniously claimed–they unequivocally would not have the authority to do so.
“The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” per Article I, Section 8 of our great and beloved U.S. Constitution. Again, not the Supreme Court, not the president and certainly not some bureaucrat, but The Congress shall have Power To establish” or legitimize birthright citizenship. The last time we checked, the 14th Amendment–specifically Section 2–modified Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, not Article I, Section 8.
Furthermore, Congress exercised their legitimate authority to do so when they included Native Americans in 1924, who were previously excluded along with “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens.” Consequently, just to remind Judge Napolitano and Charles Krauthammer, it is called The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. This false version of history they are selling as Gospel was not born 150 years ago, but roughly 30 years ago. It’s a byproduct of a movement started by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., aimed at creating a permanent immigrant underclass and loyal voting constituency.
What it isn’t is the truth, and Americans shouldn’t buy into it for one second. Through our lawmakers, American citizens have every right to decide who they believe should be granted the precise gift of American citizenship, absent the disconnected sentiments of activist courts or media talking heads.
barque / October 5, 2015
“In 1886, roughly 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, a native American who argued birthright citizenship, lost at the Supreme Court. That’s because the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to deal with slaves who were born in the post-slavery United States, and certainly did not pertain to children born to illegal foreigners.”
Elk wasn’t denied “because the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to deal with slaves…”
Elk was denied because he was deemed to still belong to a sovereign Indian nation, and thus – as intended by the authors of the 14th – he was not subject to the jurisdiction.
You are insinuating that the 14th was only supposed to deal with the slaves, that’s it, and that it “did not pertain to children born to illegal foreigners.” Actually, it did not specifically “not” pertain to illegals. It only and specifically excluded those on the soil who were known to be not subject to the jurisdiction: Sovereign indians, ambassadors, enemy occupiers, and personnel on friendly foreign ships in U.S. ports. The framers were not vague, and “subject to the jurisdiction” was known to exclude those classes. It couldn’t have excluded “illegals” because there was no such thing as “illegal” immigrants at the time. It was not left open for future generations to add exclusions like “illegals” or whomever some parts of our society decides aren’t showing allegiance.
And the court, in Plyler v Doe, did in fact affirm that illegals are just as “within the jurisdiction” and “subject to the jurisdiction” as those legally present within our borders. Plyler v Doe was specifically ruling in relation to the meaning of those phrases in the 14th Amendment.
/