Immigration Laws the U.S. Should Emulate
As noted in my recent “inaugural address”, there isn’t much a president is authorized to do. In a nutshell, he must execute the few constitutional laws Congress passes, and veto the rest.
Repelling and expelling invaders is obviously among the permitted functions of his restricted role. Not only should a president deport anyone who illegally enters American territory; to honor his oath, he has no choice.
If citizens don’t like the laws, they should convince Congress to change them. But if statutes are constitutional (as those ousting illegals obviously are), the president is obligated to execute them. To do otherwise is an impeachable offense.
Misunderstood Amendment
Eliciting recent uproar was Trump’s executive order rescinding “birthright citizenship”. Critics claim this directive violates of the first clause of the 14th Amendment.
But it doesn’t. At least not according to the man who wrote it. Let’s review the relevant language:
“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.”
Senator Jacob Howard, who authored these words, elaborated on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, and to which people it didn’t apply:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] 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.” [emphasis added]
In other words, Trump is right about this. At the very least, it’s not obvious he’s wrong.
The jurisdiction clause has long been misunderstood, misrepresented, or ignored. It was meant for postwar freedmen, not foreign intruders.
According to the author of the 14th Amendment, any non-citizens with allegiance to another country are not subject to the “jurisdiction” of the United States, so their offspring who happen to be born here would not automatically become Americans.
This was the accepted understanding till the turn of the last century, when the current nonsensical interpretation began to take root.
Not that modern judges will agree. They almost certainly won’t. Unsurprisingly, one has already blocked the order. We’ll see where this goes, tho’ it seems destined to reach the Supreme Court.
“Un-Christian?”
So much for Caesar. What about Christ?
We know that “constitutional” and “Christian” aren’t synonymous. As with the 16th Amendment, they’re occasionally at odds.
A decade ago, Pope Francis denounced Donald Trump as “not Christian” for proposing a wall on the border and desiring to deport anyone who illegally crossed it.
There are as many reasons to assume Donald Trump isn’t Christian as to affirm Joe Biden isn’t Catholic (tho’ the Bishop of Rome was always strangely silent on the latter litany).
But is it “un-Christian” to want to build barriers and deport criminals? Isn’t that what locked doors, local police, and private security are all about? I was unaware trespassing was a noble virtue, or that inhibiting and punishi
Article from LewRockwell
LewRockwell.com is a libertarian website that publishes articles, essays, and blog posts advocating for minimal government, free markets, and individual liberty. The site was founded by Lew Rockwell, an American libertarian political commentator, activist, and former congressional staffer. The website often features content that is critical of mainstream politics, state intervention, and foreign policy, among other topics. It is a platform frequently used to disseminate Austrian economics, a school of economic thought that is popular among some libertarians.
