Lysander,

I understand what you're saying, but there's a larger agenda here, with a bigger set of implications. The key here is not "citizenship" perse, and voting. It is the fact that if they revoke the "natural-born" aspect of the 14th amendment, the federal gubment will then act on its illegally adopted, anti-constitutional "prerogative" to control "illegal immigrants" and term these natural-born citizens as illegal, thus giving the feds the power to deport them. It will also apply to those who aren't necessarily first generation "Americans", like me, and most other Americans who were born here many decades after their ancestors arried. The key is that it will put everyone at the mercy of deportation agents, not that it has anything to do with voting or naturalization perse.

It's another power-grab that makes my alarm bells ring!

Hasta!

G!

I must say, I completely oppose the statement that mental illness is non-existent. It isn't a disease, that's for sure, but it is very much a diagnosable and treatable illness in my experience - having worked in the community for fifteen years. 

I do agree that many people are institutionalised when other therapies (such as cognitive behaviourable therapies) would be much more appropariate.  

Within the Constitutional paradigm, libertarians should be challenging the alleged general Constitutional power to control immigration.  We shouldn't use the 14th Amendment as a back door way of promoting open immigration.  As you know, the intentions of the 14th Amendment were to guarantee federal citizenship to black Americans, not to guarantee that a pregnant immigrant would be able to give birth in the US in order to get citizenship for her child. With that said, I do see the potential for the feds to strip the citizenship away from Americans whose family has been here for many generations.  Besides, they don't follow the Constitution now.  This Amendment will just give them one more to ignore. :) 

As an interesting sidenote, I wanted to relate to you an email exchange I had with Judge Andrew Napolitano.  On more than one occasion, he has said that the Constitution give the fed. gov. power to control immigration.  So I hit him with your Article One,Section 9 argument (which I am indebted to you for bringing to my intention) that the feds only have jurisdiction over immigration into the original 13 states.  He responded that this section applied to slaves.  I then responded, that it does not refer to slaves, but Persons.  I go no response.  I don't think he was avoiding the question.  He was probably busy.  But it just goes to show how even someone as hard-core as he still subscribes to some Constitutional myths.

P.S.  Maybe you missed my email, but is there any chance of doing a podcast with NH resident Howard Katz.  He wrote some libertarian books in the '70's; The Warmongers and The Paper Aristocracy.  He has an interesting blog at thegoldspeculator.blogspot.com.  He was influenced by Mises and Rothbard but is in the minarchist camp.

Thanks.

I recently published an article by Jake Shannon, who is running for US Congress as a Libertarian, on my blog.  He had some interesting points concerning this issue:

On these matters, I tend to agree with Ron Paul and would vote them same way he did. Where I differ on Ron Paul is on the "anchor baby" issue and birthright citizenship. I favor the American tradition of jus soli (law of ground) tradition over jus sanguinis (right of blood) since I am a staunch individualist and I don't believe that one's bloodlines,race, or language should be used for OR against anyone and that people are by their nature, born good.

I would not support legislation to end our current "jus solis' or birthright citizenship in favor of "jus sanguinis" laws applied nearly everywhere else. The United States is almost unique in our "jus solis" heritage and in my mind it is a robust expression of individualism. It is a chance to break free of the chains of bloodlines, race, language. I do see the problems presented by the "anchor baby" (such an ugly term) issue but feel that the answer lies in ending welfare, not pursuing jus sanguinis.

There are obscure arguments to be debated whether or not America adopted the 'jus solis' from the English common law tradition or not. I've heard many of these arguments and personally find them unsatisfactory or convincing, especially with counter-factuals like Calvin More’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608) which held that:

"the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law 'rule' that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth".

Accordingly, in 1866, in the United States v. Rhodes, Supreme Court Justice Swayne said:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

X,

Repealing that portion of the 14th Amendment would only return us to the pre-1868 arrangements.  People would still be citizens of the State in which they were born.  Children of immigrants would not be automatic federal citizens.  However, states could enact their own state birthright citizenship statutes.  And I have to reiterate, the Constitution protects (or is supposed to protect) Persons, not citizens.  The only thing that repealing birthright citizenship will do is take away "political rights" from immigrants. 

Repealing that portion of the 14th will not, in and of itself, give the government any new power.  Individualists should support voluntary citizenship over citizenship and state citizenship over federal citizenship.

As long as we have a political system, I think it should be difficult for immigrants to become citizens.  As far as what qualifies for citizenship, I think that being born to citizens, whether state citizens, Federal citizens under the 14th or Federal citizens under the pre- 14th Amendment conditions, should be the standard.  I think the problem that none of us have articulated is that citizenship has come to imply (or probably always implied) to use of aggression.  The less people that become citizens, the better.  This, of course, assumes that these people will have their natural rights protected.