Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Monday, July 03, 2006

Doing the legwork

I have composed a letter you can send to your state representative to ask them to propose legislation in your state legislature to end birthright citizenship in your state. All you have to do is fill in the blanks or make any changes to the letter you want, but most of the work is done for you. Use it if you want, ignore it if you want, either way it is up to you.

I would also like to thank Cubed because I used some of his post on the 14th Amendment to write this letter. In addition there are some more facts included about birthright citizenship and the term jus soli that you might find interesting.

Dear (…),

I am writing to you about an issue that concerns all of us here in (…) and all over the country. I originally learned about your strong stance against illegal immigration in (…). Since I (…), I have been proud to call you my local representative. As you know the House and the Senate have each passed immigration reform bills with the House passing a bill that concentrates on border security and the enforcement of our laws while the Senate passed a bill that grants amnesty to millions, increases overall immigration, forgives those who broke the law by coming here illegally or overstaying their visas, requires consultation with Mexico before building any additional border fencing or walls, increases a guest worker program that takes away jobs from Americans including jobs in the tech fields, creates a separate set of criminal and tax laws for illegal immigrants, and in general opposes the will of the majority of Americans.

I am sure you are well aware that many localities have taken on the immigration struggle as the House and Senate continue to disagree while ICE only manages photo-op arrests of illegal immigrants while rarely going after the employers who unlawfully hired the illegal immigrants.

With the federal government refusing to take action, many localities outside of the federal government have been forced to combat illegal immigration and that is why I am writing to you. As you may or may not be aware, about 3.1 million children are U.S. citizens by birth, even though one or both of their parents are here illegally, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center. This is what is known as “anchor babies” or children who are granted citizenship by simply being born within US borders. Many people mistakenly believe birthright citizenships is granted by the 14th Amendment, but they are mistaken; the actual wording of the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The misinterpretation of the Amendment centers around the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” people in this country illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the city, county, parish, state or country because they do not pay state or federal taxes, they can not vote, and they do not have to register for the draft. Therefore, their children would and should not become subject to any state, local, or federal jurisdiction simply from being born within our borders.

Some additional history on the 14th Amendment:

In 1866, Congress realized that the legal status of recently freed black slaves was in limbo, so the 14th Amendment was written in order to clarify it.Senator 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, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."Thus, the original intent was specifically limited to freedmen, and specifically excluded "foreigners" and "aliens."The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868; it was not designed to enable illegal aliens who were breaking U.S. law to be given all manner of privileges or citizenship.Problems with the wording of the 14th Amendment arose a little over 100 years ago, when the decision about whether American Indians, whose reservations had been granted the status of independent nations, were citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court held to the original, narrow intent of the 14th Amendment, and said they were not U.S. citizens; the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" excluded them as "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." This presented a number of difficulties, so Congress decided to pass a special act, the "Citizens Act of 1924," which granted American Indians full citizenship. The act said: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: 1) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; 2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe."The provision "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes aboriginal tribes not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. - hence, it excludes members of aboriginal peoples of foreign jurisdictions like Mexico and other Central and South American countries.

The idea of birthright citizenship or jus soli, right of birthplace, is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment even by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

“The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.”

But, even as a misinterpretation it can still be overturned by a new law.

So what does this have to do with (…)? Well the first piece of documentation a child receives when they are born is a Birth Certificate. I recently found my own and it was not issued by the federal government but instead by (…) and I was not issued a Social Security number but instead a (…). Included on my Birth Certificate is also my mother’s and father’s Place of Birth; the Birth Certificate clearly shows whether the parents were born in this country. In (…) only citizens are able to earn a Drivers License, so it is simple to check if the parents of a newborn have legal documentation to prove their own residency and citizenship status.

Children born in (…) to parents who are in (…) illegally could still be issued a Birth Certificate showing when and where they were born, which doctor performed the delivery and the certificate would also show who the parents of the child are and their country or state of origin. Children born to parents who are here illegally could be issued a separate Birth Certificate that does not start these newborns down the road to citizenship that they were never granted by our 14th Amendment. You personally in the (…) Legislature could bring about the change that shows that simply being born here does not make you a citizen of (…) and thus not a citizen of the United States. The Federal Government can not mandate who is and is not a citizen of (…), and if (…) does not grant them citizenship it would be up to the federal government to decide this issue once and for all. In effect you would be doing what so many local communities are doing in passing laws to help solve the illegal immigration problem and thus forcing the federal government to finally take action. Instantly it would put you on the national stage as a political leader on this issue and it would show that you side with the majority of Americans in wanting our laws enforced. Only the federal government can take away someone’s citizenship, and in passing a law that children born to illegal immigrants in (…) will not be considered citizens of (…) and thus not citizens of the United States, you would not be revoking the citizenship of anyone already born here because that is beyond your jurisdiction. But, it does solve a problem here in (…) and around the country that is only getting worse by forcing the federal government to finally take some action on the issue of illegal immigration, and it makes you a national leader on the issue at a time when it is the most important issue for so many Americans.

I ask you to think about this proposal and I encourage you to find a way to present legislation to the (…) that will no longer continue to misinterpret the 14th Amendment and stop granting (…) citizenship to children born in (…) to parents who are not subject to (…) jurisdiction. By passing such a law, it shows that children born to parents in this country illegally are not subject to (…) jurisdiction and thus not citizens. It would not be retroactive or take away anyone’s citizenship, but it would end the practice of “anchor babies” in (…), bring this issue to the national stage, and it would put you at the forefront of the national debate.

Thank you,



Blogger Truth-Pain said...

Outstanding Pub,... I will edit some of the content to better describe my own personal ethos on the subject, but the majority of the letter is terrific. Thanks!

Mon Jul 03, 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger Bobkatt said...

Great effort Pub, this letter hits directly at one of the main arguments used by the "citizenship for everyone" crowd. The anchor baby excuse should not even be an issue in this debate. It is obvious that the citizenship at birth law was passed to guarantee rights to those born to legal parents.
If someone breaks into your house and injures his back while trying to steal your television can he sue you for the injury? He shouldn't be in your house in the first place.

P.S. if you are interested, please go to
and see how you can help restore term limits to Oregon politicians that have made it impossible to oust these career politicians that seem to forget the promises they made to the people that elected them. There also is a petition available to force the Legislature to live within a budget and establish a reserve fund for emergencies. Thank you.

Mon Jul 03, 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger Bobkatt said...

Sorry Publius, I forgot you are not in Oregon. But, perhaps you would be interested in something similar in your legislature.

Mon Jul 03, 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

TP, always glad to help others on this topic. I have already sent the letter to my representative, and I will let you all know what he says. But, as it is July 3rd, I am not expecting a response for a few days because we know the government doesn’t work the day of a holiday or the day before or after.

Bobkatt, actually I think if someone breaks into your home and hurts themselves they can sue you, say if they fall through a window the broke into and land on a fireplace poker. That is why if someone breaks in it is always best to shoot them and make sure they can’t sue you later.

And no, I am not in Oregon, so I don’t know how much my petitioning there would help.

Mon Jul 03, 06:25:00 PM  
Blogger Lillian said...

Well...I AM impressed!

Thank you for commenting on my blog and referring me to yours.

If you don't mind, I will cite this article on my blog.

Bless you for standing up and fighting the good (rule of law) fight!


Sun Aug 20, 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger Lillian said...

Dear Pub,

Do you think the Catholic Church is involved in this woman's decision to hide out in the Protestant church in Chicago?

I ask because a Catholic priest was interviewed during this FOX NEWS report.

Could the Catholic church be working in concert with small hispanic protestant storefront churches, in order to provide sanctuary for illegals?

Could this woman be a (professional) illegal activist who is using this situation as an opportunity to advance the cause of illegal immigration, or is she just a regular everyday illegal fighting her own deportation?

I smell a rat here, and I hate to say it might be the Catholic church (no offense). Nothing personal against the church...just business.

Sun Aug 20, 12:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home