Consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Cost

Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965.

The Urban Institute estimates the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.¹

FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population – between 8.7 and 11 million. It should be noted that the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million.^2,3 Using this higher number would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens each year!

As of 2001, the cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country).¹⁰ Assuming that an average birth in the year 2007 now costs $8,000, the total cost for 363,000 anchor babies would be approximately $3 billion. Assuming the more realistic number of 726,000 anchor babies, the total cost would be nearly $6 billion. American taxpayers pay a substantial part of this cost.

In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.¹ A survey conducted under the auspices of the University of California, found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County hospitals are to illegal alien mothers who are in the U.S. in violation of our existing immigration laws.

Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, but their citizen children qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other benefits granted to US citizens. Based on data collected in California for AFDC’s “children only” cases, the California Department of Social Services estimated that in fiscal 1994-1995, 193,800 children of illegal aliens received welfare, costing $553 million.

By not addressing this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing immigration law, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Rule of Law

By deliberately not addressing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.

The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative.

One Man, One Vote

Congressional district reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”.

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If non-citizens (illegal aliens) are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes citizens in states having relatively low proportions of illegal aliens.

United States Sovereignty

The Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”⁸

The Mexican government recently provided dual nationality to its citizens who naturalize in the United States. No longer looked upon by their countrymen with contempt, those who emigrate (and sneak in) to the United States are seen by Mexico as advocates for its presumed territorial claims to the American Southwest. Mass immigration, while acting as an overpopulation safety valve for Mexico, simultaneously strengthens Mexico’s political presence inside the United States. Mexican dual nationality serves to retain the allegiance of its citizens who become United States citizens, and to discourage assimilation – in spite of the oath of allegiance they take to America.

Unconstrained illegal immigration and disregard for the rule of law are not conducive toward maintaining US sovereignty. Special corporate and political interests want all the cheap foreign labor they can get. Misinterpreting the 14^th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America.

In April, 2005, President Bush signed the Security Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, with the stated objective of ensuring the free movement of goods and people across the US border. This treaty, never ratified by Congress, is a significant step towards the North American Union where a sovereign United States will be merely a memory.

Population and environmental consequences

United States population is at roughly 300 million and is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today.⁴ Approximately two-thirds of this population growth will be due to mass immigration – that is, immigrants, illegal aliens, and their descendents.⁵

The United States is past the point of environmental sustainability. Scientists have noted that a sustainable population at today’s consumption levels would be approximately 100 to 150 million people.⁶ A good and readable overview of the population-environment connection can be found at SUSPS. A visual presentation of the damage illegal immigration does to the environment near our southern border can be seen at DesertInvasion.US.

Other countries

The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship.

It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)

Millions of Americans

Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted – freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.

Notes and more information:

1.   Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

2.   Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface (Bear Stearns, January 3, 2005)

3.   Fred Elbel, Illegal immigration invasion numbers (DesertInvasion.US, August, 2004). Published in the Social Contract under the title How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.? (A New Methodology) (Fall, 2005)

4.   US Census Bureau.

5.   NumbersUSA.com resources on Birthright Citizenship

6.   SUSPS

7.   James R. Edwards, Jr., Two Sides of the Same Coin – The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration, (Center for Immigration Studies, February, 2006)

8.   Anthony Beilenson, Case for Correction By Constitutional Amendment, The Social Contract (Fall, 1996)

9.   US Citizenship and Immigration Services

10.   The Cost of Having a Baby Dr. Greenfield (Dr. Spock, July 18, 2001)

Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith have noted¹ that:

“The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate…as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here [.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant.”

References

1.   Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, “Consensual Citizenship” (Chronicles, July 1992)

Blunt Supports…

…everything the Healthcare Mandate was going to pay for, but not the Healthcare Mandate?!?

Michelle Malkin called out Senator Blunt:

(h/t TPM) GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three ObamaCare regulatory pillars:

• Federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”)
• Federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which turns the very concept of insurance on its head and leads to an adverse-selection death spiral)
• Closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls)

So, how are we going to pay for this Senator Blunt?  Sunshine and fairy farts?

Read more on Talking Points Memo.

If enacting the 3 main pillars of ObamaCare is the Republican’s main solution should the Supreme Court strike down the mandate, why are they even joining the fight?

Clearly, nothing has been learned from the 2006 / 2008 shellacking and the 2010 salvaging of the Republican Party compliments of the Tea Party Movement.  It’s still a party of milquetoast moderate solutions that will continue to bankrupt our country, create bigger government (albeit at a slower pace than Liberals), and destroy the fabric of what made America great… …the expectation that you go out and work for what you need and want.

NOBODY is talking about the real solution… …getting the Employer out of the Health Care business.  Yes, cross-state-line purchases, HSAs, and removal of 1st-dollar payments will help.  But, a huge portion of the problem is that the Employer is so involved in the Health Care business.

Under the current system, really only one person has to be satisfied with the Health Care Plan being offered to the company’s employees: the VP of Human Resources.  If he or she is happy (after getting laid, tickets to the finest suites of every professional sports venue, golf outings, boat outings, and gala dinners — trust me, I’ve seen it), then the Employer chooses their plan.  Maybe it’s the best of the three plans that the VP of HR had time to take a look at, but is it the best for 100% of the employees?  Of course not.

The government got the Employer into the Health Care business with wage and price controls during World War II and on occasion beyond.  They’ve got to get them out of the picture, so Health Care Companies work to keep their actual customer (the employee) happy — not Senior Management.

Then a market-based health-care exchange would make sense.  Ever heard of Kayak?  Priceline?  Oribtz?  Hotels.com?  Apparently, the free market can build a system where you can compare rates for travel cheaply and efficiently.  There’s no reason a free-market Health Insurance Exchange couldn’t do the same.

Then, the Employer can offer funding of a Health Care Plan… …and stay out of the CHOICE of a Health Care Plan.  The Employee is then responsible for choosing the best plan from a menu of options.  He or she can decide if they want to have the Appendectomy insured, or know that it costs $1500.00 (or whatever) and be prepared to pay for it.

If they choose not to have insurance, the Employer keeps the money… …and probably looks to hire someone more responsible.  But, the Employee now has the best option to find the most suitable Health Care solution for his or her personal situation.

That, my liberal Republican friend, Mr. Blunt, is a good starting point for Health Care reform.

Support The REINS Act

By David Epps, Cape Girardeau, MO [Edited by Brian Bollmann]

An Open Letter To:

• Senator Roy D. Blunt
• Senator Claire McCaskill
• Representative Jo Ann Emerson

I demand you support the REINS Act.

Congress must play the largest role in making rules that govern our country. Unfortunately, the balance of power between the branches has been disturbed and executive agencies distort often decades-old statutes to install presidential policies that Congress never intended and would never approve. This must end.

The EPA, DOE, FDA, FED, HUD and other agencies were formed in the best interests of the people of the United States but they have been turned and used as a weapon against America. Neither you nor I could have ever believed that such a thing could happen, but it has!

A case in point, the EPA:

Take second hand smoke. You cannot point to a lung cancer and say that is a result of the carcinogens in the smoke. All you can say is that there is statistical probability that it may be. But there is a statistical probability that it is from something else.

Or take dust and particulates, it looks dirty so therefore it is dirty and needs regulation. Well no it doesn’t until it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it is the cause of direct harm. The head of the EPA said “We would regulate dust if we had the budget”. There is no science in that statement just an expression of a desire of a bureaucrat to perform to their job description, regulate.

Or take SO2 and other emissions from burning coal. It was proved that SO2 produces acid rain so we cleaned it up. Now it has stopped acid rain so what is the necessity of further cleaning. NONE. There is a point of diminishing returns. But yet the EPA is continuing to tighten emissions without proof of harm.

There is a point of diminishing returns! The EPA website proves it!

As of 2010 the US had spent $729 billion total on Air pollution abatement. The EPA claimed that this resulted in 160,000 fewer deaths per year due to reduced adult mortality. By 2020 the US will spend an additional $650 billion total on Air pollution abatement. The EPA claims that this result in an additional 70,000 fewer deaths per year due to reduced adult mortality.

I will decide if it is worth it? It ain’t!!

The total deaths in the US due to all causes in 2007 was 2.4 million.

Certified cause of Deaths US

• 2,423,712 – All causes
• 616,067 – Diseases of heart
• 562,875 – Malignant neoplasms
• 135,952 – Cerebrovascular diseases
• 127,924 – Chronic lower respiratory diseases
• 123,706 – Accidents (unintentional injuries)
• 74,632 – Alzheimer’s disease
• 71,382 – Diabetes mellitus
• 52,717 – Influenza and pneumonia
• 46,448 – Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
• 34,828 – Septicemia
• 34,598 – Intentional self-harm (suicide)
• 29,165 – Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
• 23,965 – Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease14
• 20,058 – Parkinson’s disease
• 18,361 – Assault (homicide)
• 451,034 – All other causes (Residual)

Source CDC

1,186,039 – Fetuses Aborted

The $650 billion could be more wisely spent and have far more efficacy discovering cures for all the other causes of death — well like lung cancer!

And if that is not enough to convince you how out of control the EPA is just look at their website. Its contents are purely political. The EPA claims that we either pay $650 billion for clean the air or pay $2 trillion for poor health? The EPA arrived at this figure by assuming each death is worth about $7.4 million each.  Is death really worth $7.4 million?

The REINS Act would ensure that any regulation with an impact of more than $100 million would be subject to an up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress and would require a presidential signature before the regulation would become law.

The REINS Act is about transparency, accountability and the proper balance of power between Congress and the president. I urge you to do the job you were elected to do and ensure that no regulations with a major impact on our economy become law unless Congress approves them.

I demand you support the REINS Act and that you and congress get directly involved in regulating the EPA regulators. This statement sounds so bazaar but that is exactly what we get when we put a communist in the White House.

 

Blunt’s Turn

It’s an apropos blog title today because every other representative of Cape County’s Tea Party members has been the topic of this week’s blogging AND it describes a serious turn towards liberalism and big government by Missouri’s freshman Senator.

I couldn’t believe when an article came across my Internet Wires reporting that Roy Blunt was the Co-Sponsor of a new bill to enforce sales tax collection on Internet Purchases.

From Brian R. Hook…

The Marketplace Fairness Act would close what the Republican from southwest Missouri describes as a tax loophole, leveling the playing field between local and online retailers.

The Marketplace Fairness Act:  I don’t think anything could sound more Obama-esque!

At 7:00am on Friday 11/11/11, Jamie Allman of St. Louis’ KFTK 97.1 was scheduled to interview Blunt.  I fired off an e-mail to Jamie requesting that the Marketplace Fairness Act be a topic of discussion.

Here are a couple of statements from Mr. Blunt before the tax fairness discussion:

Are we going to be the United States of Europe; or are we going to be who we want to be…

The president’s view of this is clearly different than mine…

…We have to make a different decision; get our spending under control; get our programs under control.

What have we learned from [list of countries]…and other European countries? If your government gets bigger than you economy can support, it creates a huge, and maybe even unsolvable, problem.

Are we going to be the United States of America – where opportunity is the goal – rather than just sort of an equal division of everything that’s out there to divide.

Well, apparently, Mr. Blunt thinks that, here in America, we’re not collecting enough taxes… …and that’s just unfair. Here is the pertinent part of the discussion

Jamie: ~~Sales Tax. Is it Controversial?

Blunt: It is a little controversial; I’m for it; I’ve always been for it. What that would do would be to create a pattern where states could participate; they’d have to make the choice to opt in where the merchant who does $500 million of business over the internet would have to collect the sales tax when they do that business.

Wrong Mr. Blunt; your bill taxes SMALL business that sell $500,000 worth of goods – not $500 million

Blunt: It’s a fairness thing; it’s a fair tax equity thing. The local merchant who’s trying to be there on the Main street on the corner not even far from here or across the street from here… their products all have that – whatever it is where they live – that 5 or 6 or 7%.

Jamie: Yeah they’ve got to pay it.

Blunt: And if you get that mailed to you, you’re not paying that tax right now; though actually technically, under most state laws, including ours, you’re supposed to then voluntarily send the sales tax to the state. And, of course, we know what happens with that.

Jamie: Right

Blunt: So this is not “Taxing the Internet”. This is saying that if you buy things on the internet, you pay a tax, the same tax you’d pay if you bought it from the grocery store across the street.

Jamie: And here’s the issue, I think, for some people if they’re against this. Let’s put it this way. Let’s have no sales tax at all. But if you’re going to have a sales tax; everybody ought to be sharing that burden in terms… there’s no reason an internet company from California ought to be at a competitive advantage over a company right here in MO.

Blunt: That’s right. If you don’t pay that – your share of the tax – who takes care of the sidewalk in front of your house? Who takes care of the police department or whoever else is dependent on that tax? And so, this is a tax fairness…. I think for years, it’s been confused with the government trying to manage or tax use of the internet – which I’m not for. Now this is just saying, if you buy on the internet – and this is much less complicated all the time too ya know – if your GPS can hone in on a picture of every address in America, they can pretty closely figure out exactly what the sales tax would be for that address with a not-very-complicated program. You apply that program; send the money to the states; the states figure out how to distribute it in the fairest possible way.

Mr. Blunt, which side are you on?  The keep the government as small as possible side?  Or, the let’s make a giant sales tax collection bureaucracy side?  In your discussion with Jamie this morning, you came down on both sides.

But, considering I am a proponent of abolishing the 16th Amendment in lieu of all taxation via Consumption Taxes, I don’t disagree that we need to be able to apply taxation to the final (first) purchase of an item or service.

However, as Mr. Blunt surely knows, we don’t have a taxing problem in the U.S. right now, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.  He is clearly not paying attention to his constituents or holding to his word when he co-sponsors a bill that provides an increase in revenue to the Government.  No matter what kind of spin he tries to put on it, if I’m paying $10 of taxes to the government, and he puts through a bill that makes it become $11 worth of taxes… …IT’S A TAX INCREASE!!

And Mr. Blunt, it seems you are tone deaf to the regulations already stifling America’s small businesses AND to the millions of Americans that are unemployed or underemployed.  A new regulation to require such businesses to track this level of detail taxation will require new, costly and unproductive accounting activity within their firms.  And the customers will suddenly be paying 7% more (let’s call it 7% inflation) for the goods and services they spend time and effort locating for the best possible price.

Yes, Mr. Blunt, it’s your turn… …your turn to be the topic of this blog; your turn towards bigger government; your turn towards ignoring your word on taxation; your turn towards ignoring that unemployed / underemployed don’t need a 7% increase in their purchase cost; your turn to sound like Obama and his doctrine of Fairness.

Now is NOT the time for big government and more taxes.  IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPID!!

TTTT Takeaway Activism and Notes – October 2010

Takeaway Activism

Do you want to help finance the Barack Obama Re-Election Campaign of 2012?

Do you want your tax dollars to help finance the Barack Obama Re-Election Campaign of 2012?

Of course not

But, if the President gets his way, that’s exactly what you’re going to be doing.  At a joint session of congress, usually reserved for declarations of war and State Of The Union Addresses, Obama introduced his much-touted $447 Billion American Jobs Act – admonishing congress to “Pass This Bill” 17 times during his speech.  You and I know it is nothing more than a political ploy that will be used to beat the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012.

Last week, the Democrat led Senate failed to pass the bill.  Now, there is talk that the bill will be split up into various parts, and the American Federation of Teachers wants you to support the spending of $35 Billion of your Federal tax dollars to save 280,000 teachers jobs nationwide.

That’s $125,000 per teaching job.  How many of you are making $125,000 per year?

The American Federation of Teachers, the Democrats, and Barack Obama have a plan for you:

1. They want you to continue to support the invasion by the Federal Government into our local schools with the usual government strings attached.  Do we want that?
2. They want to control everything from what your kids eat at school to whether or not you’re allowed to read The Bible between classes.  Do we want that?
3. They want to take more money from your grandkids and great-grandkids to give to teachers now.  Do we want that?
4. They want to take your tax dollars, funnel it through 280,000 teachers’ union dues, and finance their campaigns with help from their friends the union bosses.  Do we want that?

Of course not

But, guess what, a $35 Billion Schools Bill sounds a lot better than a $447 Billion Jobs bill.  And, it might sound just good enough to Roy Blunt, Claire McCaskill, and Jo Ann Emerson to vote for it.  Heck, they voted for the Korean Free Trade Agreement which, according to the Economic Policy Institute, will cost 159,000 U.S. jobs and will have a net negative $20.7 Billion effect on the U.S. / Korea trade balance.

Each month at our Third Tuesday Tea Time, the CCTP will ask you to Get Active!  We’ll call it Takeaway Activism.

This month we are asking you to contact your Federal Representatives to tell them to VOTE NO on the American Jobs Act and any other incarnation or portion of it.  VOTE NO for spending increases.  VOTE NO for more job strangling regulation.  VOTE NO!!

You may not have any practice calling or writing your Federal Representatives, well now is the time to get that practice.  It’s time to Get Active!  Our country is on the precipice, and we are the last defense of our Freedom and our Constitution.  Our apathy has brought us here!  Our lack of concern is failing our children and grandchildren.  It’s time to Get Active!

So, we ask you to call or write your Federal Representatives; call or write your Local Newspapers and Television Stations… …and tell your neighbors that if they want to prevent their tax dollars from paying for Elections and Re-Election of Democrats and President Obama, they better… …Get Active!

Phone Numbers and Contact information is available on the CCTP Web Site at CapeCountyTeaParty.org.

For anyone who needs it, the local phone numbers are:

• Claire McCaskill:                (573) 651-0964
• Roy Blunt:                            (573) 334-7044
• Jo Ann Emerson:              (573) 335-0101