Aliens and Naturalization: Congress’ powers vs. State (Arizona’s ) powers (medical, health care)

[AZLiam]

Thank you Johnwk1 for your insightful posts.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by AZLiam

Thank you Johnwk1 for your insightful posts.

It is so sad to see American citizens, those blessed with a constitutionally limited system of government which our founding fathers sacrificed so much to achieve, to now side with those who ignore our laws, invade our borders, and blatantly denounce the citizens of the State of Arizona for wanting nothing more to have her borders protected and the general welfare of her citizens considered as a priority over those who now ignore our laws. There is something evil afoot!


JWK

America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of domestic enemies who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by johnwk1

It is so sad to see American citizens, those blessed with a constitutionally limited system of government which our founding fathers sacrificed so much to achieve, to now side with those who ignore our laws, invade our borders, and blatantly denounce the citizens of the State of Arizona for wanting nothing more to have her borders protected and the general welfare of her citizens considered as a priority over those who now ignore our laws. There is something evil afoot!


JWK

America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of domestic enemies who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

I couldn't agree more. There is something definately wrong when many of our citizens are defending illegal foreigners on our soil and turning their backs on entire states and their fellow citizens who only want our laws enforced.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

I couldn't agree more. There is something definately wrong when many of our citizens are defending illegal foreigners on our soil and turning their backs on entire states and their fellow citizens who only want our laws enforced.

I believe most of the disloyalty to our Constitution is instigated by our Progressive gang on Capitol Hill One of their big misinformation campaigns being promoting a myth that babies born to aliens while on American soil become citizens of the unite States upon birth and are called anchor babies, which then entitles all relatives of the baby to move to the united States and must be admitted. So, let us explore the Progressive’s myth about anchor babies.

We are told by our progressive gang that babies born to aliens while on American soil become a citizen of the united States because of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment reads in part:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884) our Supreme Court says:


'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

“Allegiance”! Keep that word in mind!


And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the SCOTUS emphatically states:


That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins:



Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.'

And how may an alien become subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States? Surprise! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” which is taken during naturalization proceedings.


The following is the text of the “Oath Of Allegiance”




I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;


that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;


that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;



that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;



that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;


that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and


that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God

By this oath, an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States.

The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins:


Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.

Now why would the SCOTUS repeatedly make statements that the wording 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of aliens born on American soil?


I would say it’s because the court is required to abide by the intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and, the statement made by the Court expresses the very intentions, as stated by Senator Howard who moved the Senate on May 30th, 1866, to take up H.J. Res. 127, which proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Upon the Senate taking up the motion, Senator Howard states the following:


The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. (my emphasis) see: Con. Globe, 39th Congress (1866) page 2890

Now, as to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always pointed to by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.

Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves.

Sorry for the length of the post but I thought the documentation was essential to give credibility to the thread as well as Arizona‘s new law..

Regards,
JWK

[chicagonut]

Thanks for posting this. It should lay to rest any stupid notion that babies born from illegal aliens on our soil somehow meet the requirements for instant citizenship. They do not! Now what can we do to make the Supreme Court look at this and interpret the birthright citizenship clause correctly?

[meemy]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

Thanks for posting this. It should lay to rest any stupid notion that babies born from illegal aliens on our soil somehow meet the requirements for instant citizenship. They do not! Now what can we do to make the Supreme Court look at this and interpret the birthright citizenship clause correctly?

My thanks also, JWK. I echo chicagonut's question...WHAT CAN WE DO?

We have sent our thousands of faxes and emails to DC asking, then pleading, and now demanding that our laws be enforced so as to stop this massive invasion...all to no avail.

Practical advice on further action is needed.
.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

Thanks for posting this. It should lay to rest any stupid notion that babies born from illegal aliens on our soil somehow meet the requirements for instant citizenship. They do not! Now what can we do to make the Supreme Court look at this and interpret the birthright citizenship clause correctly?

What can we do?

The old saying goes, the cockroaches will run for their lives when the light is turned on!

Let us take the time to educate every patriotic and freedom loving American to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, so they may then swell the halls of our Supreme Court and turn the lights on.

Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) instructs us that:

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.

Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean. Let us look at some authoritative sources:

FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

Par. 92. “Intent of framers and adopters as controlling”

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19


16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally


Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis)


16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )


Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings“

Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

[getout]

Thank you, printed and posting...

[Benicar]

Excellent thread. Thanks!

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by saganista

What are the chances that the law never goes into effect at all? Given mounting poltical and economic pressures, maybe the governor issues an executive order instructing police officers not to enforce the law until legal and other issues surrounding its enforcement can be clarified and resolved, and then nothing is ever heard of it again.

Actually: the odds are growing that more and more states will enact similar laws based on our SB1070.

The pro illegals had their chance; now it is our turn to 'retaliate' by supporting Arizona.