Opinion by: Phillip Davis
Our nation is like the home we live in. Think of it as a household with children and as working parents we do our best to raise a family and pay bills.
Imagine people whom we do not know entering our home without permission, to live with us while we must also take care of them straining our budget, whether we want to or not.
First, we should explore some background before we dive into the Congressional Transcript of 1866.
The latest news out on the past Administration that occupied the White House is that Obama did not deport 500,000 illegal aliens during his Administration as he said he did. He also granted temporary protection status under a program he called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) that many call “Dreamers”; an estimated 700,000 people.
Today our nation is overrun with illegal aliens by the millions, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), costing the American taxpayer $116 billion annually each year. They bring in children and have children on U.S. soil that are also taken care of. According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in 2011—
- Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
- The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
We have an immigration system for a very good reason, to control the flow of immigrants into our nation ensuring those we do allow in have something to offer America based on individual merit, where the taxpayer doesn’t have to take care of them. Instead, even our own immigration system is perverted allowing people in legally, even without anything to offer to our communities, where we must take care of them as well. We even allowed people in who’s own ideology does not allow them to assimilate, we take care of them even though they possess a doctrine of dominating other cultures while even murdering non-believers not of their own ideology/cult; insane.
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had sound words for us long ago we should have followed when it comes to our laws.
Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin
Date: May 20, 1808
[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.
Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
U.S. citizenship was discussed in Congress during an 1866 session concerning the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We should bear in mind that congress or the courts cannot change the 14th Amendment it must be followed.
It’s now time to set the record straight once and for all as to who is actually a U.S. Citizen and who is not. Here is the actual 1866 transcript from congress during the 39th congress—
“Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. [1]
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only an American citizen could enjoy the “extent and quality” of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.
That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. [4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians.
All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]
James Madison who has been referred to as the “Father” of our U.S. Constitution had this to say about allowing people to immigrate to the United States:
“When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]”
Having read what the 3 founders have said so long ago, and what the congressional transcript succinctly illustrates, we can fully understand now that children born of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens.
Today, America drowns bit by bit with millions of illegals on our soil draining our money and resources, while many commit crimes in America from robbery and theft to rape and murder. Their first crime was crossing the border illegally and in many cases multiple times entering illegally over and over again after deportation.
Maybe implementing Mandatory E-Verify instead of Voluntary E-Verify for businesses would go a long way towards self-deportation, with heavy penalties and jail time for hiring illegals in the first place. Cutting off free money such as Welfare payments to illegals would go a long way. These proposals sound harsh and cruel but we must bear in mind that this is completely unsustainable, while the lack of assimilation will also continue to destroy America from within.
“A House divided cannot stand”. It’s just a matter of time.
Note: The entire transcript can be accessed by following the link below and by using the references where this transcript can be found by anyone.
Reference source: Congressional Globe
- [1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (view actual page)
- [2]. Id. at 2893
- [3]. Id. at 2895
- [4]. Id. at 2893
- [5]. Id. at 2897
- [6]. Id. at 1291
- [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.
Visit Tampafp.com for Politics, Tampa Area Local News, Sports, and National Headlines. Support journalism by clicking here to our GiveSendGo or sign up for our free newsletter by clicking here.
Android Users, Click Here To Download The Free Press App And Never Miss A Story. Follow Us On Facebook Here Or Twitter Here.