Marco Rubio

The other camp, led by Senator Marco Rubio and Grover Norquist, argues our legal immigration system has been broken for decades, and we effectively have de facto amnesty because it’s simply not practical, humane, nor economically wise to deport 11 million. They believe our present immigration system, with its arbitrary quotas and massive bureaucracy, is inconsistent with conservative free market principles. They reject the notion that immigrants invariably vote Democrat, and see opportunity to win more New American votes, as proven by Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and recently by Canada’s Conservative Party.

A May 2011 poll by Pew Research found staunch conservatives split 49%/49%. Three Republican groupings, staunch conservatives, main street Republicans, and libertarians split roughly 60/40% in favor of immigration reform including a path to citizenship.A recent poll found 60% of Republicans  support immigration reform, and after details of the gang of eight immigration reform plan were explained, support rose to 75% with just 10% strongly opposed. The perception fostered in the mainstream news media for years is that Republicans are monolithic and opposed to immigration reform, but clearly Republicans have been and still are divided. Before November, Republicans who were shrill about immigration were often quoted in the media, while most Republican leaders tended to avoid the topic or only talk about immigration enforcement, which is less divisive. Since the November election debacle, pro-reform Republicans are more vocal, pushing back against the shrill minority who for years have berated immigrants.

Grover Norquist has been staunchly pro-immigration reform for many years. He participated in a series of immigration reform conferences during 2012. Only the last conference, just weeks after the election, garnered any media attention at all, while Mitt Romney’s self-deportation rhetoric garnered constant media coverage. Most media coverage of conservatives who support immigration reform is recent.

Immigration Before the Progressive Era

Prior to the progressive era, American had no immigration quotas and a few common-sense restrictions, such as barring criminals, prostitutes, paupers, etc.

America’s first unauthorized immigrants were African slaves, imported after Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808. In the Southern states slavery was still legal, and more slaves needed, and so the importation continued despite the ban.

Later, many Irish immigrants bypassed legal ports of entry because they were simply too impoverished to pay the head tax. The federal government did not have immigration inspectors until 1890, though some states had immigration inspectors. Very few immigrants who arrived in America were turned away. Those who chide unauthorized immigrants with the claim their grandparents came legally would do well to compare today’s immigration laws with the past; the laws are vastly different now.

Immigration as a Tool of Progressive Social Engineering

Prior to the first quotas, Ellis Island admitted 98% of immigrants who arrived. There were no immigrant visas; those who wanted to immigrate simply arrived, and unless they were in an excluded class (i.e. criminal, prostitute, sick, etc.) they were admitted.

Madison Grant, progressive and author of “The Passing of the Great Race”

In 1921 and 1924 strict per-nation quotas were imposed, designed to bar non-Europeans altogether, and severely restrict immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Early modern progressives like Margaret Sanger, Madison Grant, and Harry Laughlin argued Southern and Eastern Europeans were genetically inferior and lowered the intelligence of America’s people”, would never assimilate, came seeking charity, increased crime rates, etc, many of the same arguments we hear today.

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder

Harry Laughlin infamously testified in Congress that 82% of Jewish immigrants were feeble minded.” Madison Grant wrote the book “The Passing of the Great Race, or the Racial Basis of European History” (read here), which argued “Nordics” were superior, and greatly inflamed American public opinion against immigration. Hitler called Grant’s book his “Bible” and ordered it translated and published in Nazi Germany, and Nuremberg war crimes defendant Karl Brandt referred to Grant’s book. Not surprisingly Hitler praised the 1924 National Origins Act.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and an ardent supporter of eugenics, wrote of immigrants and blacks in Pivot of Civilization: 

“…’human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

Harry H. Laughlin, architect of 1924 immigration quotas

Later, Laughlin founded the Pioneer Fund, which later financed today’s leading anti-any-immigrant organizations with millions, and still funds academic “research” about “differences” between the races. Numerous Pioneer funded studies were referenced in the book “The Bell Curve“, which insinuates blacks have lower intelligence levels than whites for genetic reasons. The book has been widely debunked by other researchers, but the ideology keeps cropping up, most recently among the anti-any-immigrant lobby headed by FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies. FAIR grew with the help of millions in funding from the Pioneer Fund.

John Tanton – who founded FAIR, NumbersUSA, and CIS.

John Tanton, founder of the modern day anti-any-immigrant movement is very much like Madison Grant, except Tanton’s bigotry is much more subdued, since most modern day Americans won’t listen to bigots. Like Madison Grant, John Tanton is a liberal, conservationist, eugenics activist, and has held leadership positions in Planned Parenthood, Zero Population Growth, etc. Most of the arguments Tanton and his disciples use to argue against immigration and for population reduction are identical to those of his ideological great-grandfathers Madison Grant, Harry Laughlin, Margaret Sanger, and Paul Ehrlich (author of The Population Bomb).

Is the Gang of Eight Immigration Reform Amnesty?

Those who constantly throw out the term “amnesty” in describing the gang of eight immigration reform would do well to consult Webster’s dictionary:

amnesty: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.

pardon: the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.

With $2,000 in fines and a ten year wait to even apply for permanent resident status, clearly a stiff penalty is exacted, in addition to a tough set of requirements such as proof of payment of taxes, background check, etc. The 1986 immigration reform clearly was amnesty, as no fine or wait time was required. Those who met the requirements were simply granted permanent resident status.

Is “Amnesty” a Magnet for More Illegal Behavior?

Opponents of the gang of eight immigration reform argue amnesty is a magnet for more illegal immigration, and point to the increase in illegal immigration after 1986 as evidence that amnesty is a magnet.

Historically, what has been America’s experience with mass amnesty? Did past amnesties lead to more illegal behavior?

America’s first mass amnesty was Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation granting amnesty to confederates who would swear a loyalty oath to the United States. Lincoln didn’t live to see the end of the civil war, but President Andrew Johnson honored Lincoln’s amnesty, though he added exclusions, for example refusing amnesty to top confederate leaders. How many civil wars have we experienced since 1865? Zero!

If the U.S. had made a serious effort to prosecute confederates for treason during time of war, we could probably have denuded a number of forests building gallows for hanging hundreds of thousands. However, the nation saw the need to move on after a bloody civil war, and virtually all confederates were granted amnesty in exchange for regaining their loyalty to the U.S.

Immigration Amnesty

America’s first immigration mass amnesty came in the late 1920s. Early modern progressives saw immigration laws as a tool for social engineering. Immigrants from various nations were barred, starting with the Chinese in 1882.

In the early 20th century, 200,000 Italians immigrated to the U.S. each year, but in 1924 Italy’s immigration quota was set at under 4,000, a 98% reduction! Similar reductions were imposed on Russia and other Eastern and Southern European nations. Not surprisingly, within a few years the U.S. had several million unauthorized immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were “inspected” and allowed to stay. Then, as today, it was considered impractical to deport so many. Recently the New York Times opined that Hispanics are the New Italians, drawing parallels with 20th century immigration.

Did the late 1920s immigration amnesty lead to more illegal immigration? Clearly not, because the great depression soon followed and the economic forces that led so many to immigrate illegally vanished.

Critics of immigration reform argue the 1986 amnesty served as a magnet to more illegal immigration, but was this really the case? In statistics, there’s a term “correlation is not necessarily causation.” A doctor once pointed out in an op-ed the correlation between pantyhose usage and lung disease, but pantyhose clearly doesn’t cause lung disease!

There has indeed been more illegal immigration after 1986, but a review of the inflows of unauthorized immigrants reveals that inflows followed to the state of the economy, not policy. During the late 1990s illegal immigration inflows surged, while in recent years net illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped to zero, as the U.S. experienced a jobless recovery while Mexico’s economy has been strong, and Mexican birth rates have declined. AFTER a 1996 law that toughened immigration enforcement, there was a surge in illegal immigration. Clearly illegal immigration inflows have much more to do with economics than policy!

Is Today’s Immigration Policy “Conservative” or “Progressive”?

The quota concept originated with early modern progressives, who were huge believers in racial eugenics and social Darwinism. The infamous Dillingham Commission (1907-1910) authorized by Congress devoted entire volumes of their report to immigrants as charity seekers, criminals, and predicted immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe would never assimilate and become a vast underclass. Children of immigrants were often “retarded” according to the Dillingham Commission.

Dillingham Immigration Commission – Retarded Children of foreign-born non-English speaking fathers.

I have read through several volumes of the Dillingham Commission Report, and one thing stands out: Southern and Eastern Europeans were smeared in the same manner as Hispanic immigrants are today. A vast permanent underclass was predicted by early modern progressives, but for some reason I’m not able to find a vast underclass of Southern and Eastern European descendants in America today, nor am I able to locate a large population of feeble minded Jews as predicted by 1924 National Origins Act architect Harry Laughlin. In fact, Jews are among the most successful demographics.

The blatantly racist per nation immigration quotas and bars to non-European immigration were eliminated in 1965, but the quota concept remains with us to this day, for both immigrants and guest workers.

Do quotas make sense? I think not! Immigration is driven by economics, and inflows should be driven by labor markets, not arbitrary quotas influenced by special interest groups (i.e. big labor). Critics of immigration reform point to America’s immigrant quota as largest in the world. However, as a percentage of population U.S. immigration inflows are #22 of 34 OECD nations. Canada admits 2-1/2 times as many immigrants; Switzerland and Germany five times as many, and tiny Luxembourg ten times as many immigrants, as a percentage of population. For some strange reason our demise as a nation is predicted if we accept more immigrants, but 21 other nations already accept more immigrants and don’t experience the dire consequences predicted for America.

Similar arguments were made by slavery proponents, that freeing the slaves would bankrupt the U.S. We freed the slaves and paid for a long civil war, but didn’t go bankrupt in the process.

Conservative Principles in Immigration Reform

Conservatives believe in limited government in free markets and limited government, but are current immigration policies consistent with conservative principles? I say emphatically not! The main features of today’s immigration policy are arbitrary quotas with no basis in free market capitalism, with massive government bureaucracies telling employers how many immigrants they can hire, how to recruit them, and even how much to pay. Some employers, particularly farmers, must deal with several big bureaucracies, with no assurance their harvesters arrive in time for harvest, and big fines for honest paperwork mistakes. Not surprisingly, farmers bitterly complain how difficult the system is to use, and less than 10% of farm ‘guest workers’ have visas.

Conservatives also believe in the ‘rule of law’ and conservatives are against amnesty, as amnesty by itself is a temporary solution. As a conservative, I am opposed to amnesty in and of itself, as that doesn’t address the underlying problem. In 1986 Congress passed immigration amnesty with some enforcement provisions which proved largely ineffective. Congress failed to follow up for many years on border security, and never followed up on guest workers. In effect, in 1986 Congress ‘kicked the can down the road’, making three million immigrants legal, without addressing the root causes of the problem.

Current immigration and guest worker quotas have no rationale in economic need. Historically whenever economic demand for immigrants and guest worker labor exceeds quotas, the result has always been widespread illegal immigration. This happened in the 1929s, again in the 1950s when a resurgent post war economy required more guest workers than the quota. We’ve often experienced illegal immigration since the braceros program was eliminated during the 1960s at the behest of big labor unions. Big labor continues to be a major obstacle to guest worker programs. We presently have 9-9.5 ‘guest workers’ of which 1.8 million have a work authorized visa. The balance would no doubt be happy to obtain a visa if those were available to them, but they’re not.

Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law

As a conservative, I support the ‘rule of law’, but I also recognize that enforcement alone cannot turn bad policy into good policy. If we lowered superhighway speed limits to 20 MPH to conserve gasoline we’d surely have enforcement problems! Then would we pour massive enforcement resources to stop speeding, or step back and recognize that policy and enforcement are intertwined, and sensible policies result in manageable enforcement? Or would we take an ‘enforcement first’ stance and massively enforce a 20 MPH speed limit until everyone stops speeding, before setting rational speed limits?

When guest worker visas are limited by arbitrary quotas to less than 20% of demand, we should not be surprised that many come here illegally seeking work. Obviously we’d like for everyone to enter the U.S. through the front door, but when that door has been broken for decades we should not be surprised that our ‘hired help’ enters through the back door or windows. It’s obvious that the best way to divert migrant workers from illegal channels to legal channels is with sensible guest worker programs.

It’s Time to Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform

I’m not happy with all aspects of the gang of eight immigration reform. I’d rather see us get rid of quotas, perhaps implementing a tariff on guest worker wages payable by employers, to tile the table in favor of hiring Americans workers first. It’s easy to predict future waves of illegal immigration, when demand exceeds quota and Congress again fails to act, under pressure from big labor. Big labor has already been hard at work undermining guest worker reforms, for example limiting the number of guest worker visas in the construction industry. However, once housing rebounds, and the need for guest workers exceed quotas, we can expect unauthorized immigrants to fill that gap.

I’m also not keen about e-verify. The federal government has been trying to make e-verify work since 1996. E-Verify is a deeply flawed system. Unauthorized immigrants can readily circumvent e-verify by using a real person’s name and social security, with fake ID. As long as the name and social security number match, most will pass e-verify. U.S. citizens who are unlucky enough to be the subject of errors in government databases, and their employers, can expect to spend weeks dealing with mammoth bureaucracies to get errors fixed!

The gang of eight immigration reform plan calls for increased use of e-verify, and buried within the bill are provisions to incorporate biometrics into e-verify. Biometrics will make it much more difficult to circumvent e-verify, but many Americans will balk at providing biometric information such as fingerprints, DNA, etc., viewing it as the invasion of privacy it is. Another major annoyance will be exit controls for everyone leaving the country. Without capturing information about those leaving the U.S., the entry/exit tracking for visa overstayers cannot work. However, this will impose delays on all travelers exiting the U.S.

However, all-in-all, the gang of eight immigration reform plan would be a big improvement over the present situation. Eliminating quotas is not likely as long as progressives and their big labor backers are wedded to the notion of quotas, especially for guest workers. Guest worker programs would be streamlined, and guest worker visas would become portable. It may also be easier for Congress to act in the future with the most contentious issue – legalization – behind us. We should all back the gang of eight immigration reform plan, while also writing our elected representatives with suggestions for improvement.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link.

Birthers will also likely ask the same questions about another potential presidential contender, Bobby Jindal, whose parents weren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents when Jindal was born.

Sadly, one likely reason Marco Rubio was passed over as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick was the likelihood that Marco Rubio would have been constantly dogged by birthers. In my opinion, Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney immensely with Latino voters once they got to know him better, and low support among Latino voters likely cost Mitt Romney the election, along with his unfortunate self-deportation comment.

No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists. If you disagree with them or confront them with hard evidence to disprove their theory, the immediately accuse you propagating disinformation as part of the conspiracy, almost a ‘no win’ proposition.

Anonymous e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, igniting the birther movement when conspiracy theorists picked up on the issue. Most prominent among birthers is author Jerome Corsi, who makes a living creating conspiracy theories to sell books. Who can ever forget the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed President Bush would merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico without the approval of Congress? Corsi even claimed there was a new currency, the Amero, but just try to find one. You can buy Corsi’s book “The Late Great USA: NAFTA, the North American Union, and the Threat of a Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” for a penny from Amazon.com. Corsi’s North American Union is so lacking in facts and ridiculous that Corsi shouldn’t be taken seriously, but he continues to be a popular author. The more outrageous his conspiracy theories, the more books he sells!

Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly a natural born citizen. So is Bobby Jindal, and so is John McCain, though John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama. All three were U.S. citizens at birth and therefore are natural born citizens.

At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law. Birthright citizenship was part of English Common Law, except for children born of slaves, who were considered slaves rather than subjects.

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years. The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. 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.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a non-citizen throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If children born of non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc. The legal status of their parents is irrelevant.

The only exception to birthright citizenship are children born on U.S. soil to foreign leaders, diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity under treaty and international law, and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a U.S. born child of a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket him for littering, they can claim diplomatic immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants. Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race forever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding! Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. The most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century was William Blackstone. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base, and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction when he was born.

Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born. No doubt birthers will seek to delegitimize Marco Rubio’s citizenship by claiming one or both parents weren’t here legally, but it’s clear the legal status of one’s parents isn’t relevant to the child’s legal status. Ditto for Bobby Jindal, whose parents were not yet permanent residents when Bobby Jindal was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship. Most Hispanics are either immigrants themselves, or 1-2 generations removed, and sadly many Americans view all Hispanics as either unauthorized immigrants or ‘fake citizens’ who are citizens due to ‘misinterpretation’ of that pesky 14th amendment.

####

by Bob Quasius, founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans (original link)

Now that Republicans have formed a proposal for the young undocumented students in the U.S., the Democrats are crying foul.  Democrats, et. al are “infuriated” because it is a plan, based on an economic and responsible means that will help the U.S. economy and the plight of the youth living in limbo status.  It helps to alleviate the fear of the many who are to become uneducated, and who run the risk of living in the shadows of odd jobs, alias identities, and mounting fear of living in between worlds of the U.S. and that of a country that may well be foreign to them, their country of birth.

Liberals further scoff at the idea because it calls for the youth to remain in school, attend the military, or acquiesce to Deportation. According to the plan put forth by Senator Rubio, in order to qualify for the school option, students must attend and complete their education which would allow them the opportunity to obtain a student visa in the process.  With this, they can obtain legal IDs and be able to travel without the fear that they will be detained and deported.  With the option of the military, they can choose to enlist in the military branch of their choice, Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines and make it their career or serve their time and seek to move on to their adjustment of status.  If they choose to stay on this path, they will compete with everyone else who is on the path to Legal Permanent Residency by way of a Non-immigrant Visa.  This idea seems unpopular to the liberals because it is intelligent, responsible, and Republican.  Other than that, it offers a step forward to fixing the broken system that currently is cranking out results in an antiquated method.

A Non-immigrant Visa is a working Visa.  “Nonimmigrants, unlike immigrants, enter the U.S. for a temporary period of time and are restricted to the activity consistent with their visas.” (Immigration Law Sourcebook, 12^th Edition, Ira J. Kurzban).    A non-immigrant Visa, then, is issued to a Foreign Visitor, who abides to the agreement that they do not intend to make it a permanent setting to seek Residency or Citizenship.  The visa that is issued is done so for work purposes.  While the Visa is granted on a discretionary method, it is temporary but can be changed within the current and legal means while in the U.S.  For example, with the students in the Rubio’s version of the Dream Act, the students can   join the workforce and apply for another non-immigrant Visa that will place them on the path to Citizenship.  They must, however, compete with other Visa holders who are currently in the labor market.

This may require Congress to add more Visas to be made available since there will be more job applicants vying for the limited number of Visas.  Subsequently, this could prove to be a win/win situation as the Visa applicants will be working and paying taxes, while the U.S. economy will be reaping the benefits of those taxes and an educated work pool.  In the end, the youth would be able to live in the U.S. without having to adjust their status via an embassy or consulate office that would have them leave the U.S. for an unknown period of time.

In hindsight, the act would have been better renamed as the Immigrant Children Adjusting Now, or ICAN Act.  This would give it a healthy distance from the rancid feeling that liberals and grotesque militants have given to the Dream Act.   In Senator Rubio’s version,  undocumented students and Valedictorians like Daniela Pelaez, facing deportation in Miami, would be allowed to stay in the U.S. and would be able to attend school.  Furthermore, the act helps to alleviate the fear of separating families, especially the youth from their parents should they be detained and deported to a country that is now foreign to them.  More importantly, the act helps to lead to a more secure American and one that could alleviate the ailing economy.

As the Obama Administration continues to deport 1.2 Million, and counting immigrants (including detaining 3500 U.S. Citizens), it also has not offered any form of creative solutions to this complicated issue.  Obama has used his Executive Power to “recommend” halting deportations and instead offers Prosecutorial Discretion to those awaiting to appear before an Immigration Judge.  However, this is hardly a solution to those seeking relief and for the U.S. and its safety.  This continuous state of limbo, prompted Senator Rubio in helping to guide the youth through  this labyrinth of Immigration laws.  And if there is to be a reform in immigration in the next five years, let’s say, this is a bold and courageous effort that could finally prompt this Administration to act upon its overdue promises.

you can read more of Linda Vega’s article on here page here>>>

Obama was right, a change is coming. That change is expected to gradually overtake the Southwest in the next 20 years.  Political strategists can foresee this change and are advising us to brace for it because it will change how we measure success from our current standard.    These strategists are telling us that instead of keeping up with the Joneses, we will be keeping up with the Gonzalezes or the Rubios in the next 20 years, and that explosion is geared to happen in the Southwest.

The argument that Democrats want to make against Republican Latinos is that, the Party doesn’t want you, but they should be careful at what they state as they do not help the advancement of Latinos within their party.  My message to Latino Democrats is this:  Listen up Latino Democrats, the Democrat Party doesn’t want you to succeed.  They would rather you live in the “pobrecito*” mentality arguing that someone else is responsible for your failures, your stagnant success, and when you achieve it—-your success.  The Democrats would rather have a growing number in their own Party being dependent and continue to be victims of someone else’s success—or mean rhetoric–than strong members of society who rise above the pity of the “race porbrecito” to say, “I will succeed despite the odds.”

Currently, Latinos in the Republican Party are only 1/3 here in Texas, I admit.  But not because we are not wanted, but rather because only a few of us have the ability to possess that confidence to say, no to the race baiting, and no to the empty promises that limit our potential.  We become strong along the way from failure and the sheer determination that failure will not kill us, but will redefine us for success.  That success, then, is determined by our ability and our decisions made at a very early age that started by education.

Democrats would like you to believe, especially all those Young Latino Texans wanting to attend college, that your limits are set by how many government grants there are out there. But when I listen to the story of Marco Rubio and his plan to get educated, he understood what he had to do to achieve success.  His parents left Cuba and he himself could not see returning to this country.  He attended Tarkio College for one year on a football scholarship and then transferred to Santa Fe College before going onto law school.  He had the drive.  He had the opportunity, education, and now the success.  Yet, when I listen to Latinos graduating high school in Texas, they dare not go further than the designated line written by their parents.   I see lost opportunity for them and for us.

As parents we want to protect, but over protecting can stagnate a seeking mind that could develop into a productive educated American; hence, a taxpayer.  These individuals, whose Latino culture smothers them with loving protection, costs us a new Marco Rubio, Al Gonzalez, and even a Susanna Martinez.

The conditioning for restricted success starts at home.  When we tell our children not to go too far, Latinos begin to learn to restrict themselves from achievement; hence, this becomes the template for the failure that keeps them from breaking out into a new environment that could bring them success.
Democrats too often favor government grants without asking for personal accountability. It is, therefore, this type of free grants that foments unresponsive citizens in the minds of young Latinos who may believe that government is responsible for personal choices.  This constricted opportunity, provided by Democrats, is given to the students by way of Pell Grants and other Grants, with no sense of guidance and direction by the University administration or the counselors themselves on how to use those grants.   For instance, “in 2002, the federal government disbursed an initial $15 million dollars for a variety of start-up grants to Hispanic colleges; then added another $70 million that went to rev up existing grant programs. Hispanic-serving colleges are those whose student bodies are at least one quarter Hispanic. These institutions are concentrated in California, Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and New York and New Jersey.”  This helped to increase the Latino student population into the vocational school and the medical field, but it did little to give students the responsibility of earning their success by way of achievement.  Latinos were being given money not because of ability but because of the shortage found in institutions where there was little diversity.  The result, was a sense of disinterest and high drop-out rate because students didn’t feel that they had “earned” their way into the institutions.  They were given things that did not develop that sense of accomplishment.

According to the Pew Hispanic Organization, “College-age Hispanics accounted for 1.8 million, or 15%, of the overall enrollment of 12.2 million young adults in two- or four-year colleges in 2010—setting records both for their number and share of young college students.^”  But the trend does not follow through because many Latinos drop out before completing their education.  What is happening to stagnate that success?  Again, students lose their drive because they do not have to compete for their accomplishment.  They are blindly given that opportunity that makes them to feel less deserving of that success.

In Texas, the Top Ten Percent Program allows Latinos, who graduate in the top ten percent of their class, admission in the State schools.  As is stated in previous articles, this will create a new tier of taxpayers and an educated Latino group.  These young Latinos are well on their way to a successful career.  However, their opportunity may be absolved and their potential can be stifled should they decide to study something that they find easy.  Rather, than being challenged with an opportunity that will provide them with a job, especially in this competing and volatile market.    These days we see students graduating without a job offer and with a large educational debt.  Those who in 2008 saw a potential for a prosperous career, are now caught in the worst deficit curtailing of job opportunities since the last depression, according to many economists.

The ambitious individual is driven by the realization that their success was earned.  Every failure that turned into success, every grade on that mid-term paper; every job after an interview and every pay stub that shows the salary earned, creates that individual who is a confident and interactive voter/taxpayer.  That individual will in turn begin to establish a vested interest in voting because he will acquire the capacity to buy a home and establish property rights.  That educated and successful individual will then, find the ability to understand the basic concept of high taxation, and intrusive diminishing value of his 401K and contribution into the entitlement pot.  And when educated Latinos acknowledge this value in themselves, they will realize their limits have been placed upon them by a conditioning rhetoric coming from the Democrats.  Their education and success will be, to the Democrats, like Superman finding kryptonite and losing his strength.

*pobrecito: Diminutive of pobre; poor thing;  intended to give pity.

you can read more of  Linda Vega’s article on her page here>>

How is it that President Obama looks the other way when asked how he has helped to create any policies that will help the Latino Community? Or rather he does not shun the questions, he merely laughs and says that he has 5 more years to work on Immigration reform. This is how disconnected he is to the community. He believes that Immigration is the only vital issue that will bring peace to the havoc that his broken promises have brought to the community. Everyday the rise of unemployed Latinos succumb to pressure, and give up on opportunity in this country because they are living a life that has a dead end to prosperity. According to the Pew Hispanic, the wealth of Latino households felt by 66% in the last 6 years. Thus, the “hope” that Latinos anticipated that a new President would bring to this country, and the community’s possible prosperity, has now dwindled into a resentment mood towards Obama and his policies that have caused more harm to the community than any other administration. Unemployment among Latinos has remained the highest in the last two years between 11.3% in 2011 to its current 10% in 2012. Many contend that lack of education is mostly responsible for this wearisome figure, but others look to the lack of opportunity arising from those unfulfilled promises made back in 2008 made by Obama. As a result, a resentment vote is brewing towards Obama in the minds of Latinos.

In 2008, Candidate Obama promised the Latinos that he sought to unite America by giving an open opportunity to everyone. During the campaign in 2008, he repeatedly mentioned Comprehensive Immigration Reform and how he would focus on passing something during his first year in office. To many, this was exactly what brought them out in 2008, finally someone who was willing to work with a Democrat Congress to address issues important to the community. Latinos anticipated that this immigration reform would give them opportunity in economics and education. In fact, this was one of the reasons that Latinos came out in record numbers to vote for that anticipated “change.” On and on, Obama drove this mantra into the Latino Voters, “in the first year of my administration, Comprehensive Immigration Reform will be one of my main priorities,” but that never solidified. It was never even attempted.

Obama bears the responsibility of those broken promises because they have affected the education and prosperity avenue for many Latinos who could have advanced to a better opportunity by now.  Instead they have high unemployment, separated families, and a lost opportunity for attending college by many of the young who are now of voting age.

Subsequently, Republicans have toned down their rhetoric regarding immigration in part because Senator Marc Rubio warned the party of a loss of allegiance from Latinos if they did not.  And he was wise to advise not only the party, but those candidates who staunchly insist that they want legal immigration.  Everyone does.  This pervasive issue is intermingled with other issues that ail the community.  As such, Latinos are affected by immigration and that includes both legal and illegal, and it is that latter that has been used a voting “tease” by both parties.  What is not present in the rhetoric is that immigration is tied into our economy, education and prosperity.  For many years that we have allowed people to misdirect us to believe that immigration is bad for the U.S., they have also managed to convince many that Latinos are “probable cause” for being illegally present in the U.S. and that is just not true.  In fact, this misconception has given rise to laws like SB1070 that has opened the door to a disunity and an appearance of “racism” by both parties.

On the one hand, a small hand of Republicans introduced a law that seeks to use “discretionary” reason to detain those looking or “appearing illegal,” while the Democrats did not raise a hand during the recent Supreme Court oral arguments, to show that the term “discretionary” can infringe not only on the average American, but especially on the “Latino” American living in the Southwest.  And yet, many will look the other way, hoping that Obama didn’t really mean to tell his lawyers to half heartily argue against SB1070 so that the fear of Republicans by Latinos can be kept alive.  It is a pathetic way to keep the Latino community in the shadows full of fear and limited options, and to subtly suggest that the Republicans are racists.  And we are not.

Obama further promises that he seeks to lower the interest rate or even forgive the educational loan for many young students.  Yet, how does that affect the average young person who cannot find a job? While this may mean one less debt to pay, the young have little prospects of a job for the future.  Rather than focus on implementing educational prosperity for the Latino student as Texas has done, Obama gives the attitude that education is the key to prosperity, but which prosperity does he mean?  His double entendreleaves us again, confused listening to spoken speeches that do not offer solutions.  Instead Obama offers higher taxes, growing debt, and larger Federal programs.

In the Southwest, the Latino community has prospered with sound economic policies that were implemented to provide more opportunities for the expanding Latino population.  For instance, the educational plans Texas has implemented for the young 27.3% under the age of 18, gives rise to opportunity.  The top ten percent admission program offers young students, who graduate in the top tier of their High School class, admission into a State University.  In fact, it has proved to be a magnet in help to keep the young student in school.  Those who were 15 years old in 2008 and who sought opportunity in education have benefited in Texas because of these policies that were led by the conservatives who believed and sought ECONOMIC opportunity for the Texas population.  Those Latinos will remember this come November.

Obama has not been forthcoming in his promises to the Latino community or Americans for that matter.  Currently, Latinos are feeling the effects of their 2008 vote for Obama, and it has not been for the better.  From education, to jobs and immigration, many Latinos now resent the failed leadership and the vacuum of power demonstrated by the Obama Presidency.  Where in previous times Latinos were a growing middle class of success, they now see themselves perplexed and oftentimes embarrassed that they believed Obama would help them achieve these dreams of prosperity.  It wasn’t meant to be in 2008, and the resentment vote may make it a limited one term for Obama.  Republicans must step up now and help to lead America, especially the Latino community, out of this mess of hopelessness.

Read Linda’s articles on her page here>>

Latinos Ready To Vote! Is a conservative organization that helps with outreach to Latino voters in Houston, Texas.  In fact, through these forums that we have the opportunity to listen to voters who say that they feel ridiculed and foolish for having believed Obama’s well spoken rhetoric of hope.  Moreover, many of these Latino voters now state that they will not vote for Obama in the upcoming election.

Latinos Ready To Vote! also helps legal permanent residents become U.S. citizens.  These new citizens  will vote for the first time in 2012 and they firmly state that they are becoming citizens for two reasons.  First, they feel that they want to protect themselves from being deported by this administration.  And second, they as new voters they want to flex their power with this new found right, and they want to ensure that their vote will not go toward the Obama administration.  This resentment vote, is alive and growing as we near election.  Moreover, it is the vote that the Republicans should bank on, for this upcoming election.

President Obama’s “new” found voice by way of his Executive Power, is a 180 degree change from a speech where he stated that as President, he had to enforce the laws on the books and that he could do nothing else to help the plight of the undocumented youth in the U.S., whose Latino population exists in the hundreds of thousands.  This power that he previously said that he didn’t have, is now conveniently discovered by way of the Napolitano Memo, five months before the November election and is expected to “temporarily” offer a band-aid fix, to a problem that has this country in a state of limbo.

The Napolitano Memo also comes after Obama received  a  letter about two weeks ago signed by nearly 100 law professors, who offered a strategy to President Obama outlining his authority to provide temporary relief from deportation. The announcement also comes on the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that states cannot exclude undocumented children from elementary and secondary schools.

Deferred action exists under, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), §103(a), USC 8 §1103 and states that

“The Attorney General shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this Act and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this Act or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.”

By way of the Executive Power, the Supreme Court has ruled that the President will grant power to its administrative agencies so as to enforce certain laws. Additionally, depending on the timing, the deferred action can prevent someone from being placed in removal proceedings, suspend a current deportation order, or stay an existing deportation order.  What the Memo Directive does not provide, is a way to change or adjust status under deferred action.

In using his executive power, Obama is not circumventing the law, but he is conveniently using it, by way of the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland Security at a time when he seeks to desperately keep Latinos on his side with “nuggets” of empty promises.  Previously, Obama never pushed for immigration reform in 2008 or thereafter.  He taunted the hopeful by stating that he would pass the Dream Act if placed on his desk, but never lifted a finger to fight for it.

The Napolitano Memo is also at the heels of criticism for the Morton Memo, put in place one year to date, which was supposed to use Prosecutorial Discretion to prevent low priority cases from being placed in deportation proceedings.  This was supposed to have included the young immigrants without a criminal record and who were currently in school.   But the Morton Memo failed to give any type of relief as ongoing review of pending removal cases yielded disappointing results and cases continued to surface, of immigrants being denied prosecutorial discretion despite compelling circumstances.

When Senator Rubio introduced the idea of a new “Dream Act” version, which by the way is very similar to what this “memo” of deferred action seems to say, the President did not applaud the Senator for attempting to help the youth.  He instead, laughed during an interview and stated that he (the President) would work on immigration in the next five years.  And so, for the next few years, Latinos can expect “nuggets” of promises to be thrown our way.

This outreach is temporary and is a promise to the Latino community that the youth will be out of harm’s way, for the moment.  This Memo is slight power that now is distributed to agencies by way of  the Attorney General, and is applied in a discretionary fashion.  For now it is temporary and fails to address what will happen to the young adults in a few years after they age-out or cannot travel, or adjust their status.  For now, everyone is on board, but the after affects when felt, will stir us to ask why didn’t we fight for more?

Senator Rubio’s version was more plausible because it sought to go through the proper channels to have the Dream Act become Congressional Law.  The law would have allowed the youth to become educated and then follow through to a non-immigrant visa that would have placed them in line for receiving their Legal Permanent Residency.  It would have created a set of educated, high tax payers, who could have become part of our society and eventually become U.S. Citizens by competing for it.

The Napolitano Memo is Administrative and non-binding meaning that it can be rescinded at any time, and these Latino youth would be in the same limbo as before.  Moreover, the Memo gives approximately 800,000 to 1.5 million the opportunity to apply for the deferred action if they have the following:

1. immigrants may apply for a two-year renewable grant of “deferred action” if they entered the United States before age 16;
2. are younger than 30;
3. have lived continuously in the United States for at least five years;
4. have not been convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor; and are currently in school, have graduated from high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.

First, the Memo states that all laws are to be enforced and those with the initial power to decide whether to implement the Memo for those outside the court system are CBP, USCIS, and DHS.  These agencies who first encounter the youth shall have the power to use discretion as to whether the youth should be placed in removal proceedings.

Second, if the youth are currently in removal proceedings, the standard will be applied in a discretionary manner on a case by case basis, by whom is not clear.  Using the criteria stated above, those making the decision will decide the fate of these youth.  The many who did not finish school or were not enlisted in the military are not eligible for this temporary relief.   Moreover, it is unclear whether those  about to be 31 years will be in unlawful status as this deferred action does apply to them.

Finally, those who are not currently in proceedings will be eligible to apply for the deferred action through USCIS.  The agency will  use the criteria stated above, and use discretionary authority to decide the status of the youth.  It is not for certain if the applicants will be approved or not, but it is a careful choice that the many will have to make.

If we listen to what Obama is saying, he speaks loud and clear in that he states, that this is not amnesty, it is not a benefit, and will not give the youth a path to citizenship.  What it gives us is a promise that will not be a congressional “law” and may not be enforced if we use the Morton Memo as an example.  He is trying to win favor by now coming forward to use powers that he had all along and has given us the Napolitano Memo that is limited.  In other words, he is promising to right a wrong that he should have legally done a long time ago, again.  Latinos should remind him that we are conservative when it comes to family, and will protect our children and their dreams this time around.

Linda Vega is an Immigration Attorney and  Founder of Latinos Ready To Vote