{"id":64352,"date":"2018-11-04T17:23:45","date_gmt":"2018-11-04T22:23:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=64352"},"modified":"2018-11-04T17:23:51","modified_gmt":"2018-11-04T22:23:51","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-friday-november-2nd-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=64352","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Friday, November 2nd, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, November 2nd, 2018…and<\/strong>\u00a0here’s an abbreviated edition of\u00a0The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

We lead off the inaugural installment of November with both sides of the 14th Amendment argument, each courtesy of the WSJ<\/em>.\u00a0 First, Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spalding makes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship<\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

Trump\u2019s critics misread the text and history of the 14th Amendment<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“President Trump accomplished something remarkable<\/em><\/span> this week: He sent his harshest critics and<\/span> closest allies running to the Constitution<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span> In an interview about immigration, the president argued that the \u201cridiculous\u201d policy of birthright citizenship has to end\u2014and that he can do it through an executive order.<\/p>\n

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: \u201cAll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.\u201d They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a constitutional right to citizenship.<\/span> But a closer look<\/span> at the language and<\/span> history shows this is not the Constitution\u2019s mandate<\/span> and should never have become national policy<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Josh Blackman argues…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Birthright Citizenship Is a Constitutional Mandate<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

\u2018Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?\u2019 a senator asked in 1866. The answer is yes<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump\u2019s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright-citizenship proposal: \u201cIs the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?\u201d he asked. \u201cIs it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?\u201d Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens \u201cshall be citizens\u201d and he was \u201centirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Judges have affirmed Conness\u2019s view consistently.<\/span> In 1898 the Supreme Court adopted it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The justices held that the 14th Amendment \u201caffirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory…including all children here born of resident aliens<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

So what, inquiring minds want to know, is the definition of a “resident alien”?\u00a0 This is where, in our humble opinion, Blackman’s argument in support of anchor babies falls apart.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

“A\u00a0resident alien\u00a0is a foreign person who is a permanent\u00a0resident\u00a0of the country in which he or she resides but does not have citizenship.<\/strong><\/span>To fall under this classification in the United States, a person needs to either have a current green card or have had one in the previous calendar year<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

Oh,…and has entered the country LEGALLY!!!<\/strong><\/p>\n

We<\/span> report<\/em>, you decide<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 But before reaching a conclusion, please consider the following two points:<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1).\u00a0 Senator John Conness of California, a native-born Irishman, had nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting of the 14th Amendment, and likely had a limited knowledge of both the law and the Constitution, having neither training nor schooling in either, facts of which Mr. Blackman should have been aware.\u00a0 And the good Senator’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment stemmed from his support for the well-being and rights of Chinese immigrants in California…LEGAL immigrants, i.e., “resident<\/em><\/span>” aliens.\u00a0 Conness’s views on Section 1 of the Amendment are thus as meaningful as the combat recollections of…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…Hillary Clinton and Brian Williams.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2).\u00a0 As a good friend noted over lunch on Thursday, Conservatives need to reframe this debate.\u00a0 Rather than allowing the focus to remain on the poor, huddled Hispanic masses yearning to breath free of the fetid stench of Central America, we need to ask whether those who drafted and passed the 14th Amendment really<\/em> intended<\/em><\/span>\u00a0to grant the offspring of pregnant Russian<\/em><\/span> women with the wherewithal to fly into the country immediately prior to their due date the greatest honor in the world simply because they were birthed on U.S. soil?!?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’d strongly suggest the answer is…<\/strong><\/p>\n