MOCKERY INSTEAD IF DISCOURSE ON THE 14th AMENDMENT

This week, liberal Bill Press derided Senator Jeff Sessions (R, Alabama) for suggesting the14th Amendment of the Constitution does not extend citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born within the United States. Rather than explain why he disagreed with this alternative interpretation of this important amendment, Mr. Press proceeded to mock southerners and all others who dared analyze this situation differently. http:// http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdnzuzkUVr

With banjos in the background, a mock Southern accent, and substandard English, Mr. Press implied that proponents of this alternative viewpoint are similar to those who believe in UFO's and alien encounters. To further back up his opinion, Bill Press stated his opponents were "mean-spirited".

Why would an intelligent commentator resort to stereotypes and name-calling in place of sound logic? Why do Leftists resort to emotionalism over objectivism? Why do the leading "thinkers" of the Left hesitate to use reason rather than bumper-sticker insults?

Let's take a look at the Constitution and the history behind the 14th Amendment to understand just why there is disagreement regarding its meaning. Amendment 14, Section 1 of the US Constitution 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..."

Bill Press claims that Amendment 14 provides that all people born within the United States are citizens. Read it again for yourself. Don't take someone else's word for it. The Constitution clearly states that being born or naturalized in the United States is insufficient on its own to be considered a citizen. A person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country. Words are important! While the word "and" might seem insignificant, functioning without this conjunction would be quite difficult.

It should be evident to all that the citizenship is dependent on the following two conditions being met: (1) a person being "born or naturalized in the United States AND (2) being "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country. So, the debate should be centered on which people born in the United States are subject to United States jurisdiction.

Understanding the history behind the 14th Amendment helps us put the question in context. Contrary to what Senator Sessions stated, the founders did not draft this amendment. The 14th Amendment, in fact, codified portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States--- with one caveat. This caveat was that any such person could not be subject to a foreign power. Granting full citizenship to former slaves was the primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866! These former slaves and their offspring were indeed subject to this country's jurisdiction. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States was a limiting clause placed on the granting of citizenship to people born within the United States.

Are the children of illegal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of this country? The author of the clause, Senator Jacob Howard, stated the clause excluded aliens and foreigners. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11 Other supporters of the amendment viewed the amendment differently. A diversity of opinions on the meaning of this amendment existed then, as they do now.

I am NOT proposing citizenship should be denied to the children of illegal immigrants! I'm simply suggesting that before hurling accusations at those who disagree with our point of view on this topic, we should consider the rationale behind their opinion. Discourse and civility, rather than Bill Press's impassioned rhetoric, should prevail. Too often, journalists and commentators choose to inflame passions rather instead of informing the public and searching for truth.