More on Berman
Tyler Morning Telegraph - QUICK IMMIGRATION REFORMS MORE LIKELY FROM LEGISLATURE:
A much tougher - and much more controversial - bill that Berman plans to file would prohibit the state from recognizing “anchor babies” as U.S. citizens. These are children born in the United States to illegal immigrants.
“The purpose of my bill would be to throw (the issue) into the courts,” Berman says. “I want them to rule on whether the 14th Amendment applies. We’re the only country in the world that recognizes the children of illegal immigrants as citizens.”
The 14th Amendment says “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.”
But Berman contends the amendment was written specifically to protect the children of slaves, overturning the infamous Dred Scott decision. He says the amendment wasn’t meant to apply to illegal immigrants.
The last time the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue, it was ruling in a Tyler case. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the court struck down a Texas law denying public education to illegal immigrant children.
It didn’t specifically address “anchor babies,” and that’s what Berman wants the Supreme Court to do.
He acknowledges the bill will have a tough time in Austin.
“But I want to get that question answered,” he said.
Ah, so Leo Berman is just a Constitutional student and not really a xenophobe. That makes sense doesn’t it? Let’s go with his “I just want the question answered” why isn’t he writing bills restricting the right to bear arms to muskets. I mean, come on, that was what the founding fathers were talking about wasn’t it?
The interesting thing about Plyler v. Doe is that, no it didn’t address United States Citizens (I know Leo, you would prefer to call them “anchor babies” but even with that moniker they are United States Citizens) it addressed non-citizen children and says they can’t be denied an education. It seems pretty plain to me that if the supreme court says Texas can’t deny a non-citizen public education that there isn’t a chance that Texas can deny public education to a citizen.
I thought it might be useful to put a face to the name. I just happened accross this picture of Leo Berman hard at work for the Texas people.
Filed under: 14th Amendment, Constitution, Constitutional Rights, Family Values, HB 28, Leo Berman, Tyler, citizen rights, education, illegals, immigrants, immigration, politics, texas, texas politics
Berman was correct in contending that the Fourteenth Amendment was written specifically about children of slaves. The authors of that amendment stated as much. The birthright clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is one of the very few clauses that has been so sorely abused by Congress and the Supreme Court.
One of the authors of the amendment, John A. Bingham, left out the citizenship clause. It was proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard. It was intended to establish who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States. The clause itself is straightforward and came with ample documentary construction over how “subject to the jurisdiction†was to be construed. Sen. Howard introduced the clause this way:
“[T]his 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.â€
As we all know, there was a large amount of children born to slaves. The slaves were freed. Unborn children was not thought about in the Emancipation Proclamation. Nor was it in the XIII Amendment that constitutionally freed the slaves. It became clear some time after that children were being born and their status was was hazy! Hence, the birthright clause- with a clear caveat.
In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress is granted power “To establish a uniform rule of naturlization,…” This means that Congress establishes the procedures for people to become citizens of the United States. It does not give them power to make immigration law. This was argued at length amongst the various states because the states did not want to relinquish the power to decide who could immigrate into their states. And for good reason, too. Control of immigration is necessarily of more interest to a state because some states had borders to foregn countries or had ports, while others did not. Immigration affected some states while it had less or no effect on others.
Article IV, Section 2 states: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” According to Article 1, Section 8, this clearly does not apply to illegal aliens or to the children born in this country to persons here illegally.
In Amendment X, it says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This means simply, if it spelled out in the Constitution, it is not within the power of the federal government. Immigration law is not within the power of Congress to make, modify or even meddle in. States can.
Rights conferred to aliens, born here or not, are at the sole discretion of the states. The SCOTUS decision re Plyler v Doe may have been in error in a strickt interpretation of the Constitution. Then again, we know that much of the Constitution was build around natural law, something recognized long ago, even by Charlemagne. Had the Supremes opined that witholding public education from children here illegally was a violation natural law, I think the decision would have been at least closer to being just.
Now, in spite of the Supreme Court trying to construct law, they may actually be forced to look again at the Constitution and not precendents. This is what Berman is trying to push. If he pushes it correctly, that is, if the argument is formed and perfected based purely on the Constitution, the Court may find themselves hard pressed to wriggle a way around the 14th and the truth about anchor babies.
Comment?
No matter how you parse it Plyler dealt with equal treatment not with the citizenship issue. Have you received any information which changes your position since last we discussed the matter of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Sorry, I haven’t received any information that would change my position. I will respond to your little minion tomorrow but for the record, I am an American WOMAN not a French/Polish Babe. While I could, in certain instances, be flattered by being called a babe a right-wing radio host’s blog wouldn’t be one of those instances. Although I am flattered that I bothered you so much that you chose to ask for help.
Berman being completely correct that that part of the 14th was written specifically for children of slaves is immaterial. It doesn’t matter if it was written to protect little purple men from the planet pluto, the writers have the ability to be specific and they chose not to. The fact that John A. Bingham left it out, again, makes absolutely no difference because it was passed with the citizenship clause. How John Howard introduced it matter not (even though it proves my point, not yours) because all the matters is the ratified amendment.
I really love that you decided to make the first part of the sentence bold but not the end. Read the whole sentence again. It says this will not include foreigners, aliens who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the goverment of the United states, but will include every other class of persons.
When exactly did we decide to designate illegal immigrants ambassadors or foreign ministers? Personally, I am not opposed to congress (through an amendment) or the supreme court revisiting birthright citizenship. You, Leo Berman, whoever who feels like it has the ability to file a suit that can be appealed all the way to the supreme court that will answer that question. I am sure there are plenty of lawyers who are xenophobic enough to take that case.
But as it is now, birthright citizenship is the rule of law and until the supreme court or another amendment tell us differently you can yell from the rooftops what you THINK the 14th should mean or tell people until you are blue in the face what the writers intent was, it makes no difference because when a child is born in the United States they become a full citizen. As a citizen they deserve the same rights you or I do and that is all there is to it.
I do have to ask you here, if Leo Berman really just has a constitutional question then why did he also file HB 29 the same day?
I am pretty sure this conversation will be completely moot when HB 28 dies a slow death on the floor or in a committee but given the current state of fear the sheople of this country live in there is a slight (very slight) possibility it will pass. Even if it does, it will be struck down and the question won’t even be answered. The only question the supreme court would answer from HB28 (if it even takes the case) would be that Texas doesn’t have the right to withhold any rights from citizens. He would have had to word it quite a bit differently if he was really looking for an answer on birthright citizenship.
Dig, thanks for your reply!
I did read the end of the quoted passage, several times. The mention of diplomats, etc, is a seperate class of people. There were several discussions in Congress and in state legislatures about this. There didn’t seem to be any misunderstanding back then. There shouldn’t be now.
In the case of Berman, he doesn’t have anything to take to the Supreme Court. His bill is poorly written and usurps the power of Congress about what services can be given to people here illegally, be they children born here (though are NOT citizens) or adults from other countries. That comes under Natural Law, something the framers of the Constitution took very seriously.
His HB28 won’t die a slow death at all. It will crash and burn, quickly and totally!
You said: “He would have had to word it quite a bit differently if he was really looking for an answer on birthright citizenship.”
Exactly, and well put. Bet he won’t!
By the way, not to pick, but, you misquoted my quote.
The key is in the “two whos”. One “Who” means one thing. Two “Whos” mean something altogether different.