Subject To The Jurisdiction Thereof

Ah, yes, the ever-so-troubling 14th Amendment.

As I have mentioned in other places, I was given The Heritage Guide to the Constitution as a gift a couple months back, and I have not been the same since. While there is much ground to cover with respect to the 14th Amendment, for this brief post I'm going to focus only on the Citizenship Clause, as it is called.

I could say a bit on the topic, but not any better than this from the Guide itself:

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this Amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else... subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance - even if only partial allegiance - to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not simply mean subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States.

What I find interesting about this is that the historical record is there for the reading, and can easily verify original intent. Perhaps, in time, we may yet see this Republic turned away from the path to national suicide that we're on. While insisting on such antiquated ideas as allegiance will surely qualify me as a "hater" to someone, I can think of no simpler means of correcting some of the problems resulting from the 14th Amendment than insisting on the plain, simple and original intent of the authors of the Amendment.

Principles First, Issues Second

I have long thought that the problem with the GOP was the basis by which it was created - a third party founded to eliminate what in hindsight was a temporary problem.

While some might disagree, I think one of the most glorious moments in our nation's history is the founding of the GOP and Lincoln's prosecution of the war. An ugly blot - inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence - was wiped out at great cost to the country. Yet the party has struggled with the exception of a few periods of brilliance since then (see: Reagan, Ronald) and needs to refocus.

The GOP is a party in search of an identity. Buchanan's column suggests the same. There is a great rift in the party between "moderates" and conservatives. Calling that faction "moderates" is of course a Leftist trick - per their playbook, this infernal word game suggests that the liberal-bent within the GOP is the "reasonable" or "mainstream" part of the party.

I attend a fair number of meetings and hear a lot of Republicans speak. They all beat the drum on "limited government" (don't get me started) and family values. But when the party doesn't deliver on these "principles", as it unquestionably hasn't (out of control spending, Foley, Craig, etc.), it loses the trust and confidence of all but the most affectionate members of the party.

The great problem facing us as I see it, and this is no secret as any regular reader will note, is how imbalanced our system of government has become. I think that a political movement dedicated to returning and diligently preserving balanced government would withstand the changes of time - as our founders recognized that balance would be needed regardless of the societal changes that were impossible to foresee. It is my sincere hope that the GOP can be reformed and be the bearer of those principles. Yet, if it cannot, we have to be willing to form new political bands to preserve our freedom.

An Indictment and a Solution

I've been following this story and the lack of progress on a resolution and reserving my thoughts ever with the hope that this will be settled justly. I tend to be a realist, yet I can't help but hold out hope for the Korean hostages being held by the Taliban. Eighteen of the hostages are women, and here's today's latest news on the story.

Now, I recognize that we're dealing with fascists who are using "religion" to advance their domination. I haven't done any extensive study of Islam, so I can't say for sure that Islam is even a valid religion. Perhaps, as many say, it is a peaceful faith merely hijacked by extremists; yet, conspicuous in its absence is the outcry from the (theoretical) "moderates" not to mention any attempt at wresting back control of their religion, as it were. In fairness, perhaps that is what Karzai and others are doing.

Did you take a look at the link provided? The thing that nobody is saying is that killing is antithetical to Islam. They should release the women, of course; for that matter, they should release all of the Korean hostages. Here's the comments of Taliban thug and degenerate Qari Yousef Ahmadi:

"It might be a man or a woman. ... We may kill one, we may kill two, we may kill one of each (gender), two of each, four of each," Ahmadi told The Associated Press by satellite phone from an unknown location. "Or we may kill all of them at once."

As sad and heartbreaking as it might end up, governments should take the firm stance that they will not negotiate with terrorists. And furthermore, while Western societies pride themselves on Western values (such as patience, diplomacy, and the rule of law), we would be wise to recognize that it is an increasingly dangerous world for our values. And in an asymmetric and dangerous world, you can improve your security by being more dangerous than the perpetrators of terror. I've suggested it before, but I think that Western nations should devote a substantial amount of resources - time, people and money - to developing unprecedented clandestine capabilities. We have enemies that are willing to die in an attempt to destroy us; we would be foolish to not acknowledge this and also to not act to counter this threat.

One of the interesting lessons from the Iraq war, to my way of thinking, is this: we had to dispose of an enemy, and we chose the best option available to us to do that. Had we possessed a robust intelligence infrastructure, one that rivalled the capabilities of the CIA and the KGB at the height of the Cold War, we might not have had to invade Iraq. There are multiple ways to protect American interests abroad. We can't invade every country that poses a threat to American values. Yet, with the right commitment, we can project American power in other ways. We'd be wise to make the investment.

"Anything worth having is worth Working for."

That's one of the many verses of guiding wisdom that my dad used to offer up to me occasionally during my upbringing. And in the tradition of ol' dad I too have found very creative ways in which to share with my children, my employees and friends, and at times strangers with whom I converse on occasion, the truth in the words, and of course what the phrase itself leaves unsaid yet clearly implies - a thing isn't worth having if it isn't worth working for.

The phrase came to me as I was reading this morning's AP story on the defeat of the amnesty bill and what the next move is for Congress on the heels of that defeat:

WASHINGTON (AP):

Hours after a massive immigration bill collapsed in the Senate, lawmakers and lobbyists began seeking ways to pass bits and pieces of the measure important to their constituents.

A priority for many farm groups is the ''Ag jobs'' component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.

The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. It would create a path to legality for illegal immigrants planning to attend college or join the military and who came to the United States with their families before they turned 16.

Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves. Backers of items likely to be left out, they said, will resist losing the political leverage that a multifaceted package can provide.

In an interview earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- a backer of the sidetracked immigration bill -- said the one-at-a-time approach may prove impossible, even for tougher border-enforcement measures that now seem popular.

''The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act'' or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, Graham said, ''is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that.''

Other Republicans, especially in the House, disagree. All immigration-related proposals should be postponed, they said, until the Mexican border is secured.

''The American people believe that until we're able to secure our borders and enforce our laws, taking additional steps is really not in the best interests of the country,'' House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after Thursday's crucial Senate vote that derailed the bill.
Some lawmakers immediately urged President Bush to accept defeat on the wide-ranging bill and ask Congress for an emergency spending bill for more border enforcement activities. ''That would be a great next step after this vote,'' said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who opposed the bill.
Some lawmakers said it hardly matters, however, because enough money and authority already are in place to do the job.

There should be ''a very strong sense of urgency in this country to simply carry out the law, the mandate, for 854 miles of fence that we passed'' in the 109th Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told reporters Thursday. ''They've only built 13 miles of the fence so far. Let's get it built before the next hot season.''

While the security debate simmers, the farm lobby will push for Ag jobs, immigrant advocacy groups will fight for the DREAM Act, and other interest groups will seek avenues for similar pet projects. Some legislative leaders Thursday were noncommittal on how they might fare.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was asked if his caucus would support Ag jobs by itself. Most Republicans would back a similar program, he said, but he added: ''The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished. You have securing the border, being sure that workers who are here appropriately are here with ID that's verifiable, that's reasonably hard to duplicate.''
Paul Schlegel, public policy director for the American Farm Bureau, said in an interview, ''It's a little soon to handicap'' the Ag jobs program's future. ''The administration has said all along they want a comprehensive approach,'' he said, and the bureau has worked in concert with the White House thus far.

The immigration bill's collapse forces all key players to rethink their next moves. Individual components may gain support in the coming weeks, but it won't be easy, several lawmakers said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in an interview before Thursday's vote: ''I think it's pretty hard, the way things are set up here, to get anything done on immigration that's not part of a package.''

Note the refrain among our lawmakers that it's easier to pass a multi-faceted ('comprehensive'?) immigration plan than it is to pass singular and popular aspects of the bill. Note how that they tend to favor the 'easy,' as opposed to the more difficult pathway to properly dealing with the immigration situation. And I guess it's obvious why, because a packaged deal appeals to more folks than do singular aspects of the deal. But to paraphrase President Lincoln: "you can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all the people all the time."

I'll admit that I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the farm lobby and others who always fall back on the tired old retort that crops are going to rot in the fields if we don't legalize millions of aliens who, unlike Americans, are willing to work hard, and for beans too. It should be pretty obvious to reasonable persons that the claim falls way short of exhausting the options.

There's a point here that I think really needs to be driven home. Americans will work low-paying jobs if the feds'll keep their noses out of private business and the private affairs of individual Americans. But it's not just the feds that are culpable in this, private businesses invite impositions from the government by doing just what they're doing in this case. Individual Americans invite those impositions by asking their government to inject itself into that which should be kept strictly between the negotiating parties.

Another thing that'd be extremely helpful in solving this crisis (if it truly rises to the crisis level) is if welfare and assistance programs were abolished. Not that I'm saying we should abolish them immediately, but I am saying that we need to be working toward that goal. Assistance programs create dependency in those benefiting from them, not to mention that they create unhealthy attachments in the recipients toward those they perceive to be their saviors - the government. One may as well sell his soul to the devil himself if he believes the government to be the savior of he and his family.

Beyond that we have Senators like Graham insisting that to get border and law enforcement we have to go for amnesty. I would simply ask Senator Graham, why is this the case? There are no votes for enforcement? Perhaps the Senate oughta put its collective head to the task of offering the American People a non-comprehensive alternative now that the amnesty deal received its proper death blow.

As MT suggests in our position on immigration reform, we should take ordered, measured, and quantifiable steps in any and all future efforts to correct this situation. The first step is to seal the border. The legislation has already been passed, and the funding is there to build 800+ miles of fence. Get 'er done. In the meantime the States can determine for themselves what the best course of action is regarding the immigration problem. And as it becomes more of a problem for certain States than it currently is, don't think for a second that the citizens thereof won't pressure their Congresses to get something done.