Birthright Babies

The Birthright Baby Business—————————————
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr
The U. S. Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that descendants of slaves, even those born in the United States and even the children of freed slaves, could not be American citizens. This ruling, known as the Dred Scott decision, was overturned after the Civil War when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. It holds that all persons born in the United States or its territories who are subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been the law of the land for over a century and a half. It needs to be reconsidered now because the situation it was intended to rectify no longer exists and it is now being abused. Back in the mid-nineteenth century it is doubtful that many persons, if any, would have imagined that anyone would sneak into this country illegally or visit legally for the purpose of giving birth to a baby who would be a U.S. citizen. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening and on a fairly large scale, demonstrating again the law of unintended consequences.
“Fruit of the poisonous tree” is a legal expression which has to do with the inadmissibility of evidence obtained illegally. With all due respect to the innocence of babies born in the United States to mothers who are here illegally, that phrase comes to mind here. If the mother should not be here, neither should the baby have been born here.
The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to provide automatic citizenship to the children of black slaves. The slaves did not sneak into this country or visit the United States for purposes of having a baby. They were captured and brought here against their will and with the full knowledge and cooperation of the U.S. government. The very least that the U.S. government could do to rectify this injustice was to grant them and their children citizenship.
The government has no such moral obligation to those who violate our laws by entering this country illegally and giving birth to so-called anchor babies who are born U.S. citizens and who can then facilitate the eventual citizenship of the parents and other relatives. Nor should the children of foreign visitors to the U.S. who are born here be entitled to automatic citizenship, especially since it has become something of a business in the tourist industry overseas to arrange such maternal visits. Should the parent then eventually decide to emigrate here, having a child who is a U.S. citizen would facilitate the process. This is patently unfair to those who comply with the rules, apply and then wait patiently for their turn, if indeed it ever comes.
Fair or not, the Fourteenth Amendment is the law of the land. It was a well-intended law but it has served its purpose and is now being abused. Defenders of the status quo argue that it is somehow un-American and racist to support repealing the Fourteenth Amendment. But slavery was once legal and American, also. So was discrimination against women, gays and other minorities. Times change and the Constitution should not be impervious to change.
It can be argued that most people migrating to the United States, legally or otherwise do so in search of a better life but that is beside the point. A nation that cannot control its borders and entry points cannot adequately provide for the security of its citizens which is its primary responsibility. And with a growing population and slow growing economy, it is no longer a given that resources and jobs in the U.S. are unlimited. We cannot possibly provide economic opportunity and a better life for all the world’s needy and we have a responsibility first to our own needy.
Repealing the Fourteenth Amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by the legislatures of 38 states. It would require a formidable effort but it should at least be debated from the standpoint of whether or not it still serves the best interests of the United States.
August 22, 2015

Crumbling Clinton Candidacy—————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

One senses that a growing fear among GOP strategists is that Hillary Clinton, beset by attacks on her integrity and truthfulness, will ultimately be forced to withdraw from her campaign to become the nation’s first female president. Republican candidates for their party’s nomination have been gearing up with great relish for their campaign against the very vulnerable Mrs. Clinton. Seldom before has a potential presidential candidate carried so much personal baggage.

In using her personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business, Clinton very likely broke the law and, as former U. S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, showed a lack of common sense, raising serious questions over her qualifications to serve as secretary of state, much less as president of the united States.

Clinton’s assertion that she did not use her personal e-mail account to send or receive classified messages misses, or perhaps evades, the point. As Mukasey pointed out, messages or documents don’t have to be stamped with a classification code like confidential, secret or top secret to contain sensitive information which, if hacked or leaked, could embarrass, harm or endanger the United States and/or its allies and agents. There are reasons why official state department business must be conducted via official, protected channels. Discussing official business using unprotected communications channels or keeping sensitive information at home or anywhere other than secure, authorized and protected locations is a serious violation of security regulations as retired General David Petraeus learned to his great regret.

Military personnel are thoroughly indoctrinated in the importance of safeguarding classified or potentially classified, sensitive information, civilians perhaps less so. The consequences to military personnel of unauthorized disclosure, sharing, loss or failure to protect the security of classified information whether labelled or not is usually swift and sure and often career-ending, but civilians often seem to get away with it. It is unlikely, then, that Clinton will be prosecuted. But her callous disregard of the rules regarding security is inexcusable and should raise serious questions about her judgment and fitness to hold high office.

Not that questions regarding her judgment and honesty didn’t exist before the e-mail flap. The Benghazi fiasco and subsequent cover-up was another low light of a less-than-exemplary performance as secretary of state. Over half of Americans, according to polls, distrust her and thinks she lacks integrity. Why, then, should any voter other than those addicted to big-government largesse or those who will vote based entirely on gender, elect her to the most powerful office in the world where integrity, judgment and trust are essential qualities?

Hillary Clinton is typical of those in high places who can’t help feeling that they are somehow above it all and that they are endowed with such power that the rules and standards that govern ordinary people just don’t apply to them. When caught, their usual defense is “I broke no laws” or, as in her husband’s case, that depends on how you define this or that word. This is not good enough. It’s evasive, dishonest and shows a lack of character. It is the sort of characteristic that is turning the public away from professional politicians, a sentiment that Donald Trump is exploiting, at least temporarily, to his advantage in the polls.

The Democratic Party establishment has virtually crowned Mrs. Clinton as the candidate based on the feeling that it is finally her turn and that she has earned it. But her performance as a lack-luster senator and a hapless secretary of state has neither earned her this honor and responsibility nor demonstrated that she has what it takes to lead this country and restore its prestige and respect.

August 16, 2015

Thinning the Field——————————————–

a commentary

by J. F. Kelly, Jr.

It was prime entertainment. The first Republican debate of the season seemed like an episode of American Idol with that great entertainer, Donald Trump as guest. Mr. Trump lived up to his star billing, at times delighting his audience, but only after testing their patience by refusing to pledge support to the eventual GOP nominee. But the scattered boos were quickly replaced with enthusiastic applause nearly every time he opened his mouth which was often.

He emerged from this show, advertised as a debate, still the front runner, evidence of the sad fact that that many voters react as if the candidates were contestants in a talent show. His showing surprised some pundits, who expected him to make a bigger clown of himself then he already is, if that’s possible. He did come close at times, but still survives and with even more supporters, a telling message for the GOP, to wit: many voters are very displeased with professional politicians, including Republicans and they seek some big changes. Republicans have won both houses of Congress and still little gets done in Washington. That bodes ill for establishment favorites like Jeb Bush and perhaps even Hillary Clinton. People may not like the crude, belligerent tone of Mr. Trump but, as he said, “We don’t have time for tone. America is in trouble.”

Most people I know, including me, have great difficulty picturing a President Trump but they do want things to change in Washington and that’s not going to happen with another Clinton in the White House and perhaps not even with another Bush. Americans are not happy with the direction of the country with its unsustainable debt, sluggish economy and diminishing foreign influence and they blame Washington insider politicians of both parties.

Now that the fun of the first debate is over, it’s time for the GOP to get really serious. A Republican candidate for president has a real chance to win this time in spite of the demographics that overwhelmingly favor Democrats. The Obama Administration is a disaster. The Clinton candidacy is a train wreck. An aging Vermont Socialist is her only competition for the nomination. Seriously? But the Republicans have to get down to business and avoid a long, contentious campaign for the nomination. The field needs to be narrowed now to six at the most.

My choices would be Governors John Kaisich, Scott Walker and Chris Christie, former Governor Jeb Bush and Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Carly Fiorina would be an able running mate and would attract women voters. On the other hand, she wouldn’t carry incurably Democratic California where she badly lost a Senate race to Barbara Boxer. The Donald might want to hang in there for a while longer to add comic relief when the debates grow tiresome, but it’s his money and he can waste it as he sees fit. To keep him from running as a third party candidate, which would doom the GOP’s chances, the GOP winner should offer him an ambassadorship to the UN. I’d love to see him there. He’d be tougher than John Bolton.

A Kaisich-Rubio ticket or a Kaisich-Bush ticket would have the advantage of carrying voter-rich Ohio and Florida, both states being necessary to a GOP victory. Both Rubio and Bush, who speaks fluent Spanish, would appeal to Hispanic voters. Mr. Cruz reflects many of Mr. Trump’s values but expresses them more skillfully and without the coarseness. However, The GOP probably doesn’t need him on the ticket to carry conservative Texas, especially if Bush runs.

These six viable candidates would present the party with plenty of choices ranging from Mr. Bush’s moderate policies to Mr. Cruz’s Tea Party conservatism and from Mr. Bush’s tact and polish to Mr. Christie’s in-your-face style. The others, good people all, have little to gain by hanging on except perhaps to enhance their chances at winning a job in a new Republican administration. Dr. Ben Carson would probably make a great Surgeon General. They should all do their party a favor and start supporting their favorite viable candidate sooner rather than later.

August 16, 2015