This Illogical Liberalism Is Finally Challenged

By Jim Bowman

Ask yourselves, just why would the Fourteenth Amendment be so illogical as to open up our country to unlimited and unrestricted grants of citizenship? Obviously, since our Constitution lists and restricts government authority, this perversion of citizenship, as has been practiced through recent decades, counteracts our entire Constitutional intent.

None other that the prestigious Wall Street Journal (WSJ) offers a glimpse into just how flimsy is this revisionist version of our Fourteenth Amendment. In an Alex Leary piece entitled, Trump Fans Citizenship Debate as Midterm Vote Nears, which suggests a political intent rather than correcting this ongoing abuse of the amendment’s original purpose, this writer insults readers with the expectation that his version would be automatically accepted.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Watch: Chilling “Pro-Choice” Ad That’s Horrifyingly Evil

Mr. Leary’s biased account reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” If accurate, where is this controversy or the grounds for our President’s claim? However, this opening sentence didn’t end with “United States.” It concluded with the words, “and of the State wherein they reside.”

Clearly, the intent to deceive is front and center. However brazen and insulting, it defends what was promoted way back in 1965 by that “Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy! The Hart-Celler Act of 1965, otherwise known as The Immigration and Naturalization Act, was considered to be a “symbolic move,” as Deepti Hajela described in her AP October 4, 2015 article entitled, “1965 Immigration Act, presented as symbolic, changed nation.”

Now apparently, hindsight has afforded Ms. Hajela with her “changed nation” insight which was never mentioned back when President Johnson misled with his dedication promises that; “It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.” Johnson also assured the nation that this Act would “strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways.” Am I being picky or is that contradictory?

In retrospect, during the intervening fifty years, Ms. Hajela writes that, “A country that was almost entirely native-born in 1965 has a significant foreign-born population; demographic diversity has spread to every region, expanding a black-and-white racial paradigm into a multicolored one.”

Even our last president, Barrack Obama, glowingly remarked upon a recent Hart-Cellers anniversary occasion with, “We celebrate the generations of immigrants who have shaped this country and helped make America great.”

While many Americans assumed that the historic immigration patterns from Europe would not change, what has occurred, according to Ms. Hajela’s Pew Research Center source, “59 million people have come to the U.S. since 1965, just over half from Latin American and a quarter from Asia.”

Simple math points to over one million annually so with the intervening three years, that total stands at well over 62 million! Also, conspicuously absent from her detailing are the totals from the Middle East and other African nations.

It’s interesting to note that our ‘legal scholars’ when debating the Fourteenth chiefly center upon the phrase, “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” rather than the more definitive, “…and of the State wherein they reside.” Clearly, the latter focuses, even solves the debate to such a degree that one must wonder why legal minds ponder the former and ignore the latter?

Returning to that WSJ piece, Mr. Leary mentions the phrase, ‘birth tourism,’ which cites that “pregnant women travel to the U.S. in order to have children who receive the benefit of citizenship. Companies in China have attracted attention in recent years for advertising such services.” This development emboldens my opening question and places severe doubt upon today’s crazy birth right guarantees.

American citizenship is precious, and it should be. Historically, the motive was generally intertwined around a desire to become an American in heart, mind and spirit. Today’s quest of simply “wanting a better life,” replaces any notion of being a proud American. The bottom line seems financial as caravan individuals recently refused offers of Mexican asylum; in preference for the greater reward awaiting across the Rio Grande. American welfare has become a magnet for the needy and unskilled.

Leaders aren’t necessarily liked but there is a certain reassurance that Trump’s talk will prevail, that it isn’t just chumming for votes. Yes, his speech is sometimes gruff, even offensive but consider this alternative: Back in the Hart-Cellers days, Sen. Kennedy assured that, “the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants.” Today’s result is hello Dearborn, Michigan with its ‘no go’ sectors! Also, “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.” His brother Robert even estimated that the annual numbers from “the Asia-Pacific Triangle would be approximately 5,000.” While the gruffness is absent in those predictions, so was the truth!

Bottom line; what reason caused the dismissal of the proven and orderly ‘national origins quota system’? It certainly wasn’t broken. And why the emphasis upon the different nations of origins if not for the purpose of down the road ethnic change?

The Presidents current intention of an executive order seems to only muddy the Constitutional water since all that must be employed is a common sense and logical review to the Amendment’s original purpose. Also too, one of the Amendment’s authors, Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, explicitly stated that, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens…” Lastly, all the required guidance is provided by the closing words of the Amendment’s opener; “and of the State wherein they reside.” Foreigners/aliens own residence in their home country of origin, not to the State or country they are attempting to invade!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Jim Bowman

Retired, grandfather, 71 years old, Vietnam vet, author of This Roar of Ours, over 25 year of published op/eds.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend