Family Security Matters
“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”
– House Report No. 784, June 22, 1874
With the 2016 election heating up, many Americans are finding the opportunity to express anger over the nation’s illegal immigration problems.
Donald Trump, a long-shot as a presidential candidate (having never held public office), shot to the top of the polls after making seemingly incendiary remarks about illegal immigrants. I write “seemingly” because many believe his statements to be blunt truth, even if politically incorrect.
In addition to allegations of criminals coming across the southern border from Mexico, Trump is now broaching a question long hidden in the recesses of debate: Does the Constitution grant birthright citizenship to all born within the geographic borders of the United States? This question directly ties to immigration, as the babies of illegal immigrants are being granted immediate citizenship, thereby “anchoring” residency and citizenship rights to family members. Hence the term “anchor baby”. The numbers involved run into the millions, affect the nation in many ways, and cannot be overlooked. It’s time to challenge the conventional wisdom of birthright citizenship. Let me explain.
If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has his way the United Nations will be able to say if Americans are allowed to have their Second Amendment rights. He has just signed an anti-gun treaty with the United Nations that the U.S. Senate has already said it is against.
The treaty Kerry signed without authorization from the Senate would create an un-Constitutional registry of all US gun buyers and would lead to the UN controlling American’s gun rights. Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopthedailydose.com …
Candidate Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that he is opposed to so-called “birthright citizenship” for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the United States has, like many of his campaign statements, set off hysterical paroxysms of outrage and protest. I do not support Donald Trump for President, but much of his appeal lies in the fact that he is willing to address taboo subjects in a way that the public—tired of candidates and elected officials cowed by rigid protocols of political correctness—finds refreshing. The topic of “birthright citizenship” is a perfect example. Within a week of issuing his immigration reform plan calling for the end of “birthright citizenship,” there has been more discussion (fueled by considerable popular interest) of this poorly understood aspect of immigration policy than I can remember in my lifetime. Whether or not one agrees with Trump’s platform, one has to concede that he is advancing a national conversation on a critically important issue.
On Face the Nation on August 24, Sen. Ted Cruz re-affirmed that he is opposed to “birthright citizenship” as a policy matter—a position he has held since 2011—and declared that it should be repealed, either by an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment (both of which are, in his opinion, “good faith positions”). Other candidates disagree, or decline to take a position.
The issue is whether children born in the United States—even if their parents are foreign nationals who entered this country illegally—automatically become citizens. Current law supposes that they do—a concept termed “birthright citizenship.” Many people erroneously think this concept is dictated by the Constitution or enshrined in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Not so. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment—the Citizenship Clause—states that “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.” (Emphasis added.) The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed….” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
On August 24 officials from the Obama administration will be attending the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in Mexico City.
The ATT was signed by Secretary of State John Kerry on September 25, 2013 but never ratified by the US Senate. Nevertheless, Gun Owners of America reports that Obama officials will be in Mexico City for the conference.
Breitbart News previously reported that the ATT is an international gun control treaty designed to be implemented apart from, or in spite of, the general framework of governance for countries that are signatories to it.
Thus, while it will not do away with the Second Amendment on paper, it will subjugate the Second Amendment to the ATT’s gun controls if Obama administration officials return and implement the plans they will discuss in Mexico City.
ATT was pushed under the guise of stopping “small arms [and] light weapons” from crossing borders. And when it was being discussed in 2013, Breitbart News warned that firearm registration must proceed from the ATT if it is to be enforceable. After all, how can agents tasked with enforcing this treaty ascertain the origin of smuggled weapons without a comprehensive registration on file?
Moreover, the NRA pointed out that the treaty all but calls for a registry from the start inasmuch as it requires “importing countries to provide information to an exporting country regarding arms transfers, including ‘end use or end user documentation’ for a ‘minimum of ten years.’” This information on “end users” is not only a de-facto international gun registry but one that could be “made available to foreign governments.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com …
The Delaware State Constitution has an explicit protection for the right to keep and bear arms. It was enacted in 1987.
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20
It seems that some public officials take their oath of office seriously. In Lewes, Delaware, the city has a ban on the open carry of arms. The legislature, when it passed a comprehensive preemption statute, allowed ordinance that violated the statute to be grandfathered, if they existed before July 1, 1985. From delmarvanow.com:
Harvard-educated First Lady.
Michelle Obama reminded attendees of a Naturalization Ceremony Wednesday that the Founding Fathers weren’t born in America . The ceremony for 50 new U.S. citizens was held at the National Archives in Washington , D.C.
She said during her speech, referring to the Declaration of Independence, “It’s amazing that just a few feet from here where I’m standing are the signatures of the 56 Founders who put their names on a Declaration that changed the course of history, and like the 50 of you, none of them were born American – they became American.”
Excuse me? Did she actually mean that those who signed the Declaration of Independence and participated in the drafting of the Constitution were not born in America ?
-Benjamin Franklin was born in Pennsylvania .
-Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James
Madison were born in Virginia .
-John Adams was born in Massachusetts .
-Only eight of the 56 were not born in America. Surely she
But, then again, maybe not. After all, she is a Harvard graduate. Isn’t she???
As John Wayne said …. “Life’s tough.
It’s tougher when you’re stupid!!”
Ps. This is like Obama saying while campaigning in Beaverton, Oregon on May 29, 2008, that he has visited 57 States
Photo via Gateway Pundit
Source: via e-mail