I have written about "Chinese Birth Tourism" (i.e. Communist Chinese "anchor babies") as it relates to natural born citizenship before, noting that the US federal government prosecutes and imprisons persons who organize or facilitate such "birth tourism". This post will focus on the absurdity of the leftist pretense that "anchor babies" are indeed US citizens.
The linked article reports that a "California woman" and her husband, who had "helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth so that their children would have automatic United States citizenship", were "both convicted of conspiracy and money laundering".
Obviously -- definitionally -- if the US federal government is prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning the organizers of "birth tourism" schemes on conspiracy charges, then it is the "birth tourism" itself which is the underlying crime at issue. I mean, really! Literally everyone knows that only Donald Trump can be prosecuted for "conspiracy" to not commit a crime.
Think about this -- the (pregnant) Chinese women who make use of these (illegal) "birth tourism" schemes are in the US legally when they give birth. Is giving birth in the US illegal? Is giving birth in the US when one is not a US citizen illegal? Obviously, the answer to both questions is a resounding "No". So then, where is the illegality? It is in trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thereby benefit oneself in the future). IF -- as the Democrats and other leftists assert -- the 14th Amendment mandates that *all* persons born in US territory (*) are by that mere fact US citizens, irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parent(s), THEN prosecuting the persons who facilitate those births is absurd.
As explained below (*), despite the 14th Amendment, until 1924, and even though born in US territory, and even though born to parents who likewise had been born in US territory, most American Indians were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties; to wit: their tribal nations.
Now, IF the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to American Indians or the children of American Indians -- to a class of persons who had for many generations been resident within the territory of the USA -- due to the fact that their parents were not already US citizens, THEN how can the Democrat/leftist assertion that the Constitution automatically confers US citizenship on the child of someone who had crossed the border five minutes ago possibly be true? It is absurd!
Consider what is more typically meant by the term "anchor baby". There are two classes --
1) Those born to non-citizen parents who are in the US legally. This includes such persons as Barack Obama -- allegedly born in the US, with no real proof given, to a non-citizen father -- and Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris;
2) Those born to non-citizen parents who are on the US illegally. This is currently the more numerous class, and the more contentious, as the Democrats and other leftists aim to use them to cheapen the value of US citizenship, and hope to use them to cement in permanent leftist control of the US government;
The Democrats and other leftists assert that the US Constitution confers US citizenship on the two classes of persons noted above. And moreover, they assert that the Constitution confers not mere citizenship, but natural born citizenship (which, as Mrs Olson says of Folger's Coffee, is "the richest kind").
But, as the examples of both the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of those who facilitate "birth tourism", and of the citizenship status of American Indians show, the leftists are wrong. They are, in fact, lying.
If, despite the criminal prosecutions of those who facilitated such "birth tourism" births, the children born in the US to "citizens" of Communist China are indeed US citizens, why does the US government allow their mothers to take them back to China, to a life of slavery in-all-but-name and life-long indoctrination in hatred of America?
Or what? Does the act of trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thus to benefit oneself in the future) become a crime only if one has "conspired" with and paid money to a third party, such that those who "free-lance" it to drop an "anchor baby" get a pass (and get the citizenship)?
=======
(*) I have also mentioned this fact before (though perhaps not in a post on this blog) --
After ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and after the US supreme (**) Court's 1898 Kim Wong Ark ruling (which Democrats and leftists love to misrepresent), most American Indians *still* were not US citizens until passage of the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924".
This is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment --
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.
Notice that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not explicitly deny US citizenship to (most) American Indians. And yet, they were not extended US citizenship either by the 14th Amendment itself nor by the supreme Court's Kim Wong Ark ruling.
Clearly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not mean what the Democrats and other leftists like to assert that it means. Here is the Wickedpedia article's introductory paragraph on the Act --
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that any person born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This language was generally taken to mean members of various tribes that were treated as separate sovereignties: they were citizens of their tribal nations.
Attend to this: (most) American Indians -- even if born in US territory and even 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment -- were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties.
So, since the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to (most) American Indians, how is it that they became US citizens in 1924 by a mere Act of Congress? By the fact that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" is a naturalization law: the US Congress enacted a law stating that all non-citizen American Indians were thenceforth naturalized US citizens, and thus that their (US-born) descendants would be natural born US citizens.
Clearly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus soli' ("right of soil"). That is, it isn't merely the fact of being born on US soil which confers US citizenship.
Similarly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus sanguinis' ("right of blood"). That is, one is not a US citizen merely because one's parents (note the plural) are US citizens -- it is for this reason that children born overseas to US citizen parents are not accorded US citizenship unless their parent(s) with US citizenship submit requisite paperwork as established by US naturalization law before the child's 18th birthday.
(**) "supreme Court" capitalization as per the US Constitution.
0 comments:
Post a Comment