Monday, March 29, 2010

George Will on Ending Birthright Citizenship

By George Will;

WASHINGTON -- A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to illegal immigrant mothers. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

Tuesday, March 23, 2010



By Helaine Chersonsky;

The current administration is forging chains of taxation and future misery to be wrapped around the neck of each and every man, woman and child, so that we will be burdened for over a hundred years with fees and taxes and regulations. We will never again be able to raise our heads for pride in our country; we will never be able to again sing, “Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free atLast.”

What freedom we had prior to today has turned to dust in our mouths and we are choked with the bile of lies, hypocrisy and corruption.Our nation’s flag should be lowered to half mast as we salute ourEmbattled nation. We have sold our precious freedom for a mess of bitter pottage. Let those who still revere freedom gird their loins, callupon the true Founder of our Freedom and do what we must in the service of true freedom.We will not forget those Congress people and others who have forged these new chains for the American people. We will repay you in kind and in like manner.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Congressional Caucus to Focus on Illegal Workers

From Federation for American Immigration Reform

New Congressional Caucus to Focus on Illegal Workers, Unemployed Americans

Three true immigration reformers in the U.S. House of Representatives have announced the formation of a new caucus to focus on the nexus between illegal immigration and unemployment in America. Headed by Reps. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Sue Myrick (R-NC), and Gary Miller (R-CA), the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus consists of 40 Members from both sides of the aisle who will work to highlight the link between illegal immigration and record unemployment in the United States.

As the official unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent and the underemployed rate around 25 percent, these members hope to take concrete steps to get American citizens and legal immigrants back to work by advocating immigration enforcement policies to free up jobs currently held by illegal aliens.

Click here to see Reps. Smith, Myrick, and Miller introduce their new Caucus. Click here to read Rep. Smith's press release on the new caucus.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Amnesty Forces Prepare for D.C. Rally

Amnesty Forces Prepare for D.C. Rally

From; the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

On Sunday, March 21, amnesty supporters from across the country will convene in Washington, D.C. to demand that the U.S. Congress pass legislation granting amnesty to the approximately 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. Billed the “March for America,” the event is being spearheaded by “Reform Immigration for America,” a coalition of “individuals and grassroots organizations” that support amnesty. (March for America Home Page; About – Reform Immigration for America).

According to the Reform Immigration for America website, the marchers will “demand immigration reform and economic justice for all Americans.” The coalition claims that its “vision of reform includes immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens working shoulder to shoulder to achieve better wages, working conditions, and labor protections, and of an American that’s back to work, with a fair balance between main street and wall street.” (March for America – What March?). Reform Immigration for America lists a number of notorious amnesty proponents as sponsors of the march, including big labor special interest groups, such as the AFL-CIO and the SEIU; liberal think thanks, such as the Center for American Progress; and ethnic interest groups, such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). (March for America – Whose March?).

The march comes as pro-amnesty organizations are harshly criticizing President Obama for failing to deliver on his campaign promise of signing amnesty legislation into law during his first year in office. On Monday, March 8, the heads of several pro-amnesty coalitions held a press conference to express their frustration. LULAC executive director Brent Wilkes said that the members of his organization feel “angry” and “betrayed.” In addition, amnesty proponents stated that they would rebuke Congressional Democrats at the polls in the 2010 midterm elections if they fail to pass an amnesty bill. As Emma Lozano of Centro Sin Fronteras said: “No legalization. No reelection.” Responding to the criticism, White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro stated that the president’s “commitment to fixing our broken immigration system remains unwavering.” (The Washington Post, March 9, 2010).

In response to the march, FAIR is encouraging supporters of true immigration reform to make their voices heard by:

Adding your name to a list that will be presented to each Member of Congress with a message that we need to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders by signing up for FAIR’s Virtual March;

Visiting their elected officials’ local offices on Friday, March 19; and
Calling their elected officials on Monday, March 22.

Stay tuned to FAIR for more on how you can make your voice heard in support of true immigration reform! For more information see FAIR's Action Alert.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

The 3 M Candidates Missing Answers

By Bob Haran,

American Conservative Republican

Martin, Mills and Munger should be called the 3 M candidates, all three are Missing an answer to Arizona's financial crisis.

How does Arizona balance its budget without cutting essential services? All the 3 M's can say is cut.

The people of Arizona deserve some specifics, what else would they cut that hasn't been cut already?

Martin, Mills and Munger are just Making promises they can't keep.

Governor Jan Brewer has the answers and has been right from the beginning.

Arizona can't cut its way out of this mess. The 3 M's that Arizona needs are to Make More Money not Martin, Mills or Munger.

God Wins Again

God Wins Again

Atheist Loses Again On Pledge

From Traditional Values Coalition;

March 12, 2010 – God-hater Michael Newdow was dealt a defeat by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco today.

In 2002, a 9th Circuit panel ruled in favor of Newdow in his claim that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were a violation of the separation of church and state.

Now, in a 2-1 panel ruling, Judge Carlos Bea has determined that the Pledge, with “under God” is constitutional.

The 2002 ruling reached the Supreme Court in 2004. The Court ruled that Newdow had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place – slapping down the 9th Circuit ruling.

Newdow went back to work and found disgruntled atheist parents who claimed they were offended by the words “under God” in the Pledge.

He convinced a federal judge in 2005 that the Pledge, as written, was unconstitutional and argued his case before the 9th Circuit in 2007.

Newdow is defeated once again. When Newdow learned of the decision, he responded: “Oh, man, what a bummer.”

In addition, the 9th ruled yesterday that the words “In God We Trust” on our coins is constitutional.

“We can expect Newdow to start over again,” said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “He’s not going to go away. But, today is a good day for religious liberty in America. His hatred of God has been rebuffed by the very court that ruled in his favor in 20

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Judge Allows God Back in Public School

From the Thomas More Law Center;

Roger T. Benitez, a Federal District Court Judge in California ruled recently that the Poway Unified School District in San Diego, violated math teacher Bradley Johnson’s constitutional rights when it ordered him to remove two patriotic banners from the walls of his classroom because they “over-emphasized” God. [Decision attached]

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on Johnson’s behalf, after the school district ordered him to take down his banners in January 2007.

The two banners are approximately seven feet wide and two feet tall and contain phrases that highlight our Nation’s history and religious heritage. One banner with red, white, and blue stripes hung on the wall for twenty-five years and displayed the famous patriotic phrases: “In God We Trust,” “One Nation Under God,” “God Bless America,” and “God Shed His Grace on Thee.”

The second banner, which had been displayed for seventeen years, contained an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence: “All Men Are Created Equal, They Are Endowed By Their Creator.”

One school official justified the ban by claiming a Muslim student might be offended by the slogans.

That school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming, played a crucial role in the Judge’s decision.

These displays included: a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” which starts off, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama.

Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to mentioning God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Many school officials exhibit hostility towards our nation’s Christian heritage. Yet, these same officials see no problem in actively promoting atheism or other religions under the guise of cultural diversity and tolerance. Hopefully, Judge Benitez’s decision will help put an end to this double standard.

It is the responsibility of our public schools to educate students on the crucial role Christianity played in our Nation’s founding.”

In his ruling, Judge Benitez acknowledged that public schools provide students with a healthy exposure to diverse ideas and opinions. He then went on to rule, “Fostering diversity, however, does not mean bleaching out historical religious expression or mainstream morality. By squelching only Johnson’s patriotic and religious classroom banners, while permitting other diverse religious and anti-religious classroom displays, the school district does a disservice to the students of Westview High School and the federal and state constitutions do not permit this one-sided censorship.”

In response to the school district’s claim that Johnson’s patriotic banners might make a Muslim student uncomfortable, Judge Benitez stated, “An imaginary Islamic student is not entitled to a heckler’s veto on a teacher’s passive, popular or unpopular expression about God’s place in the history of the United States.” And the judge flatly rejected the school district’s argument that Tibetan prayer flags were permissible because they were decorative, describing the argument as “a transparent pretext.”Judge Benitez concluded that Johnson was entitled to a declaration that the school district violated his individual rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the California Constitution. He ordered the school district to pay nominal damages and Johnson’s attorney’s fees and costs. And he ordered the school district “to permit Johnson to immediately re-display, in his assigned classroom, the two banners at issue in this case.” Johnson returned the displays to his classroom that same day.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “Judge Benitez’s strong opinion sends a clear message to school districts across the country that hostility toward our Nation’s religious heritage is contrary to our constitution. Indeed, it was refreshing to read an opinion that does justice to our Nation’s history, rather than rewrite it.”

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Investigation of Dean Martin called for

According to gubernatorial candidate Steven Slaton, at the February 27th 2010, Cobre Valley Republican Club's Lincoln Day Dinner in Globe, Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin, who is a candidate for governor, said he saved the State of Arizona millions upon millions of dollars by not reported the revenue collected to then Governor Janet Napolitano back in 2007. Slaton claims that Martin said that he informed his staff to withhold deposit so that the governor would not know how much money came into the treasury, thus stopping her from spending it!

Andrei Cherny, a former Arizona criminal prosecutor and candidate for state treasurer said, "This is a very serious accusation that should rise above political sparring." Cherny explained that if Martin did "cook the state's books," it would not only be an illegal act of fraud, but also a violation of his constitutional oath of office.

"Only a timely investigation can show what Treasurer Martin said and did. The billions of dollars managed by the State Treasurer are the people's money and they have the right to know what is going on," Cherny said.

Cherny has called on the Fraud and Public Corruption Unit of the Criminal Division of the Attorney General's Office to open an investigation into whether Martin did indeed make that statement and did indeed fail to report state revenue.

Employer Sanctions Opponent Holds Fund Raiser for McCain

Employer Sanctions Opponent Holds Fund Raiser for McCain

By Bob Haran,
American Conservative Republican

If you think Sen. John McCain has finally gotten the message that the people of Arizona want illegal immigration controlled, you might be mistaken.

I came across a invitation to a fundraiser, paid for by "Friends of John McCain," the Arizona senator's campaign committee.

The flyer for the fundraiser says, "Jim Click and Donald Diamond cordially invite you to a Reception with U.S. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts In support of the reelection of U.S. Senator John McCain."

Now if you don't know who Jim Click is you haven't followed the employer sanctions against hiring undocumented workers issue in Arizona. Jim Click is a Tucson auto dealer and big time campaign contributor who along with; Mac Magruder, James LeVecke, Mary Rose Wilcox and others formed the group, Wake Up Arizona coalition, back in 2007 to oppose any sanctions by the state of Arizona against employers who illegally hire undocumented workers and they vowed to defeat any legislator or candidate that supported employer sanctions.

Russell Pearce was the architect behind Arizona's successful employer sanctions law which has resulted in thousands of illegal aliens leaving Arizona. Pearce was also the target of a very nasty campaign in 2008 to oppose his state senate bid orchestrated by political consultant Nathen Sproul and financed by members of the Wake Up Arizona coalition.

Donald Diamond is a Arizona real estate developer and long time major campaign contributor to McCain with a history of shady real estate deals, see

If you want to help John McCain and illegal immigration, the fund raiser will be on Saturday, March 6, 2010 at the Arizona Inn at 2200 East Elm in Tucson, VIP Roundtable is only $2,400 per person and the Reception is only $1,000 per person.

I don't think I will attend, hope you don't either.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Schweikert Gets Important Endorsement.

The Political Action Committee of Concerned Women for America (CWA) has announced its endorsement of David Schweikert for Congress in Arizona's 5th Congressional District.

CWA is the nation's largest public policy women's organization with more then 500,000 members.

The incumbent Member of Congress from CD 5 is Harry Mitchell. The CWA Legislative Action Committee says that Mitchell's rating with them is poor, having voted against their position on 25 out of 36 votes in congress.

Penny Nance, the CEO of CWA's Political Action Committee said, "David Schweikert is a stark contrast to liberal Congressman Harry Mitchell."

She pointed out that Harry Mitchell, whose voting she said matched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 80 percent of the time, "suggest that he would prefer to listen to her than to his much more conservative district which voted for John McCain in 2008."

"My hunch is that David's personal story of adoption as a child and his strong pro-life legislative credentials will make him an irresistible choice over a partisan politician like Harry Mitchell," Nance said.

Concerned Women Political Action Committee's mission is to elect solid pro-family, pro-life conservatives to Congress. Concerned Women PAC sends out a monthly letter to members encouraging them to financially support candidates like David Schweikert.

This is an important endorsement for Schweikert which you probably wont read about in the mainstream press.