Texas Drifter: Sneak Preview Recycled Immigration Policies

Library Entry # 851

Marshall’s Law Dateline – False prophets advocate violating “spirit of the law” to rationalize violating “letter of the law”. This writing exercise reviews Texas Drifter immigration policies that started evolving along America’s Southern porous border estimated thirty years ago.

Despite propaganda broadcast by "pretender" conservative talk shows in Lower Rio Grande Valley North Mexico, Texas; who do not know difference between "make it up as they go along" liberal law professors, and “strict constructionists”. Reader might consider following example: U.S. Constitution’s “spirit of law” for illegal immigrants’ “anchor babies”.

Excerpt: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment 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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. (End excerpt)

Reader can do their own research: WWW.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.

Letter of the Constitutional law: Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Now some immigration policies that will uphold, protect, and defend, from all enemies domestic and foreign.

(Insert Body of Text)

Bonus question: Not being a legal scholar - America's 14th Amendment does not need to be amended to resolve “anchor baby” legal status issues. Consider following conceptual definitions; plus simple solution of following both spirit of Constitutional law and letter of Constitutional law.

1. Spirit of law is intent of those who wrote the law.
2. Definition of rescission: The abrogation of a contract, effective from its inception, thereby restoring the parties to the positions they would have occupied if no contract had ever been formed.
3. Is there “right for one of the parties of a contract to rescind or cancel the contract for cause”, like fraud which violates spirit of law?

Can one conclude that supporters of “anchor baby” concept are violating spirit of law which is intent of law by authors of 14th Amendment; plus violating letter of law, as anchor babies are not included in Constitutional letter of law? Translation, anchor babies are beneficiaries of contract based on fraud which should result in rescission of “anchor baby statuses” and resulting benefits. Benefits from contract based on fraud are still products based on fraud. TRUE or FALSE

Editor Marshall Note: Text of Library Entry # 852 – “Recycled Immigration Policies” coming soon to Marshall’s Law Texas Drifter Library!