Mike Huckabee, Anchor Babies and the Constitution

The Washington Post ran an article about Mike Huckabee and what he would do to clear up the “birthright citizenship” quagmire the United States has been unwilling to pull itself out of. The article in part:

Huckabee vows to defy birthright citizenship

By Stephen Dinan Washingtonpost.com
January 8, 2008

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate – a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Mr. Huckabee, who won last week’s Republican Iowa caucuses, promised Minuteman Project founder James Gilchrist that he would force a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge birthright citizenship, and would push Congress to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to remove any doubt.

Huckabee addressed the situation concerning the two Border Patrol agents who were tried and convicted for shooting and wounding an illegal alien, who was in the process of smuggling a van full of illegal drugs into the U.S. Bush has never personally addressed the obviously biased trial the two border agents were subjected to by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. The only thing between Bush doing the right thing is politics.

The former Arkansas governor thinks the case against U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean was railroaded, Mr. Gilchrist said. Ramos and Compean are serving lengthy prison sentences for shooting a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks.

Force the Supreme Court? Mike Huckabee is going to force the Supreme Court?

Since this article appeared in the Washington Times, the Huckabee camp is trying to distance itself from the statement, but the statement is inline with the same sentiment Huckabee voiced this past August. He stated, “I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn’t necessarily constitute citizenship. I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that.”

Conventional wisdom would put validation on the side of the Washington Times article.

Does Mike Huckabee possess the same constitutional discernment that Franklin Delano Roosevelt wielded? Not quite. Roosevelt was acutely aware of the limitations on the government set forth by the Constitution, but chose to view them as irrelevant and pesky bumps on the road to his agendas. Huckabee, in a contrary position from Roosevelt, more than likely, really is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution–thus resulting in the obtuse aspersions he continues to express.

This is not the first time Huckabee put his lack of constitutional knowledge on display. He has mentioned four different scenarios where the Constitution would have to be amended, including the immigration amendment. The other three amendments involve implementing a Fair Tax, which would require the 16th amendment to be dissolved and a new one put in its stead; An amendment to define marriage between a man and a women; He also wants to add a Human Life amendment.

When asked if Washington D.C. should have voting rights in the House Huckabee said he supported it, not an amendment, but a bill. He was constitutionally wrong.

Concerning the “birth right citizenship” method of gaining U.S. citizenship:

The Constitution does not grant “birth right citizenship.” It has never been a law. The United States has never had a jus solis form of acquiring citizenship.

A brief history of legitimate law concerning “birth right citizenship”–with the operative word being legitimate.

The 14th amendment was a move to make permanent the 1866 Civil Rights Act. In addressing, in scope, the section relating to citizenship of the Civil Rights Act of 1866: “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.”

The language of the Civil Rights Act was changed to some degree during the adoption of the 14th amendment but stayed true to the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act. 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 the State wherein they reside.”

How subjective is the language of the 14th amendment? There is no subjectivity to its meaning if you read the arguments and explanation by the authors of the 14th amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard stated the intent of the 14^th Amendment in no uncertain terms in the ratification process by stating: “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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the father and author of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, substantiates the understanding of the Constitution concerning birthright citizenship and jurisdiction: “I find no fault with the introductory clause (Substitute 61 Bill), which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Circle back to Huckabee and his lack of knowledge of the Constitution, again. His statements wanting to “force” the Supreme Court to address “birthright citizenship” shows how grossly unaware and unprepared he is to address the more urgent and pressing issues facing the next elected President.

Without traversing through the labyrinthian maze of laws and bills since the adoption of the 14th Amendment and the inference upon inference of bad case law concerning citizenship rights, Huckabee only needs to actually take the time and read the 14th Amendment, especially Section 5 that states: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What can a legitimate, as opposed to an activist, Supreme Court do about Section 5?

The clarification of U.S. “birthright citizenship” is as simple as using the original meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and using Section 5 that delegates to Congress the ability to legislate the application. Years of misinterpretation and abuse could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. Since immigration laws fall under administrative law and Congress has the unmitigated use of plenary power to actually implement the definition of what constitutes citizenship–Huckabee or whoever would be best advised to take this legitimate route to clarification.

Huckabee’s use of the Supreme Court in this arena would run counter to the Supreme Court’s respect for the plenary power doctrine of Congress with regards to immigration and its refrain from interfering with immigration law. This method, as opposed to immigration law becoming a felony rather the use of administrative proceeding, is the most expeditious route to enforcing immigration law when applied. If illegal immigration were a felony instead, the court system must be used and that would entail a trial, a jury and different evidence rules. It could plausibly take 3-5 years for a simple deportation case to wind its way through the courts.

It is implausible to believe that anyone could excel at the highest level of any enterprise without knowing all the rules. Huckabee would do himself a service by taking civics 101 lesson on the rules of the United States–especially since he will be responsible for defending the Constitution if elected.

Since 9/11, illegal immigration, border security and national security are to intertwined to separate. No one, including the current President, can honestly admit to protecting this county’s national security and yet do nothing about illegal immigration and a porous borders. If they believe that they are protecting this countries national security and, given the state of our borders and pathetically enforced immigration laws, they are either grossly inept or just lying for political gain.