Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Defining illegality down

If Donald Trump disappeared in the polls tomorrow, he will have rendered a tremendous service by exposing Marco Rubio’s duplicity on illegal immigration. Rubio was elected to the Senate in part on the strength of his criticism of “immigration reform,” code for politicians’ betrayal of their sworn duty to protect American citizens against a de facto invasion. His post-2012 flip-flop and collaboration with Chuck Schumer and John McCain on illegal alien amnesty wounded Republicans deeply. This was part of a transparent, humiliating attempt to convince Hispanics that Republicans aren’t the racists that liberals have been calling them for years. Republicans’ desire for “amnesty” from the racism charge, paid for by schilling for all or part of the destructive liberal agenda, has been liberals’ play all along. It’s brilliant political strategy. At worst, the amnesty ploy fails amidst great outcry and it legitimizes the slander.

At the heart of Rubio’s pander is a disqualifying lack of conviction—an obsequious caving to nebulous public support, as opposed to the returns of creativity and personal risk of true leadership, which creates its own public support. The more Trump keeps illegal immigration in the spotlight, the worse Rubio looks. He opposes “repealing” birthright citizenship, as if it’s settled law, as if it’s explicit in the Constitution. We’re talking about asserting control over whom we confer citizenship, fixing the current ridiculous interpretation that illegal aliens create jurisdiction for U. S. citizenship based on their illegal entry. The argument for why the children of illegal immigrants should not be automatically conferred citizenship by virtue of being born inside the United States is sound. The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, wrote:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Thus does Cal State political science professor Edward J. Erler, in his written testimony before Congress conclude:

Congress is fully competent, under the fourteenth amendment, to pass legislation defining those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. It does not require a constitutional amendment to withhold citizenship from children born in the United States of illegal alien parents. Their parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and they seek citizenship for their children without the consent of the nation. It defies logic to insist that an illegal act on the part of parents can confer the boon of citizenship upon their children.

That describes Rubio’s logic and his habitual, defeatist maneuvering at the expense of conviction.

No comments:

Post a Comment