Who would have believed the Editors of the WSJ would for once write an editorial with which I could agree? But they did. No bloviating about the evils of Obanacare, the scourge of entitlements, the wrong-headedness of the Iran nuclear deal or the folly of Obama's student loan solution. For once the WSJ editors and I were in agreement ('Born in the USA', Aug. 21, p. A14).
This was regarding the matter of "anchor babies" and birthright citizenship that several GOP candidates, especially Donald Trump, have been sowing nonsense about. Trump, in a recent bombastic tirade deplored that fact that "300 Mexican babies were being born each day" in the U.S. and he wanted to stop it. These :anchor babies" were growing up to take American college spots, as well as jobs.
As the WSJ put it, regarding Trump's gibberish on the 14th amendment:
"Donald Trump fomented the mayhem when he told Bill O'Reilly on Fox News that the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional . 'It's not going to hold up in court, it's going to have to be tested' e said. The distinguished legal scholar added that 'I don't think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers some would disagree - but many of them would agree with me- you;re going to find they do not have American citizenship"
And, of course, this is exactly what those 20,000 Trump turkeys at the stadium in Mobile, as the WSJ noted "nearly half the GOP field apparently believes Mr. Trump has found a winning political message."
The WSJ Editors then proceed to educate these turkeys:
"The Fourteenth Amendment begins, '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'. This is the common law doctrine of juris soli, and the meaning of the language is straightforward..
"'Jurisdiction' defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom - and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth....By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens."
This is a crucial point and shows the nuttiness of the Trump et al "restrictionist" position. Because clearly, if they are not under jurisdiction according to the 14th amendment, then they would not be technically under the force of law where born or residing, so could not be prosecuted for crimes - since they would not be citizens. Only U.S. citizens can be so prosecuted.
The WSJ editorial notes that "in 1898 the Supreme Court confirmed the Amendment's original meaning ...and it reaffirmed it as recently in 1982 in Plyler vs Doe."
The WSJ then hoists all these bozos on their own petards:
"If the candidates are as committed to the Constitution and the rule of law as they say they are, then they should propose a constitutional amendment on birthright citizenship. Refresher: This requires a two -thirds majority vote of both houses of congress and ratification by 38 states. Getting Mexico to pay for a wall along its border is more plausible."
One can almost sense in the sarcasm the ridicule the Journal holds for all the wacko GOP candidates who hold this sappy position. Confirmed with this send off:
"The futility of ending birthright citizenship is part of the cheap political appeal. Republicans can pose as MacGruff the Border Crime Dog, signal that they are also mad as hell and slipstream on Mr. Trump's poll numbers....The immigration hawks are correct that birthright citizenship is unusual among nations - but since when did Republicans dump their belief in American exceptionalism?"
Damn! I just knew there had to be a situation where the American exceptionalist rot would come back to haunt the 'pukes - and the WSJ exposed it!