Bill O’Reilly has to be right. Over the last two days, he has been arguing that the 14th Amendment protects anchor babies. He first debated Donald Trump and then Andrea Tantaros. Right wing media have disagreed each day, most notably Mark Levin so O’Reilly had two constitutional lawyers on his show this evening who agreed with him.
Is Bill right?
O’Reilly doesn’t support anchor babies, he just believes the 14th Amendment guarantees their right to citizenship.
The current policies and interpretation of the 14th Amendment as it applies to birthright citizenship is distorting our immigration law.
“People come here to have babies,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in 2010. “They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave.'” He was referring to birth tourism which the left pretends doesn’t exist.
Birth tourism is a direct result of liberal interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to blacks, has been used to guarantee rights the authors never intended. One of those is the right of citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants or people coming here explicitly to have a baby who can later apply for entitlements and who will later use it for the chain migration of the entire family, fourth cousins and all.
The only countries in the western world that still have this law are the United States and Canada. Europe abandoned it. Out of 194 countries in the world, only 30 still grant unqualified birthright citizenship.
The opinion of the left and of many Republicans is that the 14th Amendment clearly grants birthright citizenship to anyone who is born on U.S. soil. There are two Supreme Court cases that suggest they are correct but there are legitimate arguments against both.
Mark Levin challenged Bill O’Reilly to come on to his show and debate the issue. Ann Coulter has asked to be invited to O’Reilly’s show. Both are conservative constitutional lawyers. Chances are neither will happen.
Bill had two constitutional lawyers on his show Thursday evening who supported his viewpoint.
O’Reilly is concerned that the GOP will become a nativist party.
If someone doesn’t do something about this massive invasion, there will be a problem. The lack of action on any issue by the GOP is why Donald Trump is a candidate.
The leftist rag Media Matters is already making the GOP into the party of nativists and racists, largely because of Donald Trump’s more extreme stance on how to handle illegal immigration and birthright citizenship.
Trump has said he wants to deport all illegal aliens, a position that does not have the majority support among Americans. What would have support is a plan to end birthright citizenship from this point on.
In 1993, Harry Reid introduced an immigration enforcement bill that included a clause to exclude those born of illegal alien parents.
He said at the time, “If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”
That was before Democrats discovered the illegal aliens were all voting Democratic.
Reid’s bill supported the logical, common sense interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.” It also states “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
Some believe “jurisdiction” simply refers to geography, but others believe it limits citizenship to those subject to our jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment was aimed at overturning Dred Scott and not meant to give citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the amendment, made it clear that it “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.”
A case used to prove the Amendment grants citizenship to illegal aliens came up in 1898, English Common Law in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, who was a child of Chinese parents who worked on the railroad.
The case, found in Wong’s favor, went against prior precedent but it only applied to a child of parents who were LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
When we talk about granting citizenship to people because they were geographically present at birth, we should discuss what it means to be a citizen of the United States. Isn’t it much more than simple geography?
The leftists at Media Matters would have people believe that birth tourism is a rare occurrence but, in fact, one out of every ten births in the United States is to a mother here illegally.
Currently pending in Congress is the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Under that proposal, a child born on U.S. soil would become a citizen only if at least one of his parents was a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident or an immigrant serving in the U.S. military.
If the bill doesn’t survive a legal challenge, then do what the left does, rewrite it and rewrite it again.
Marco Rubio discussed it briefly with Bill O’Reilly on his show Thursday evening but the response might prove unsatisfying to people who want to see candidates who are serious about changing the way we handle illegal immigration.
Senator Rubio is already at a disadvantage for his unqualified support of the gang of eight bill which legalized all illegal immigrants with a future promise of border security. We’ve been down that road before and the security never happens.
In this clip, Senator Rubio says he is open to discussing it. Obviously, he has no serious interest in it. Our politicians are tone deaf. Birthright citizenship is clearly not working.
Mark Levi:n’s take