Sitnews - Stories In The News - Ketchikan, Alaska - Opinions



Anchor Babies
By Jack M. Moutrie


May 18, 2005

"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."

Should Babies Born in the United States to "aliens" Become Automatic Citizens?

Was the 14th Amendment correctly ratified legally, and if so, why are courts interpreting the clause to include all alien births on U.S. soil?

In 1865, 27 of 36 states ratified the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery. This included 10 of 11 southern states.

The original Constitution did not recognize negroes as citizens, so in order to accomplish this and other objectives the 14th Amendment was proposed. Because most southern states objected to the terms, the northern states refused to seat 22 Senators and 58 Representatives from the southern states. The northern states passed, over President Johnson s veto, the Reconstruction Acts, which placed southern states under military rule, replacing the original legislative body by a group of individuals willing to ratify the 14th Amendment. The amendment was certified as being adopted by Secretary of State William Seward in spite of the fact (1) the joint resolution was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress, (2) the joint resolution was not submitted to the President, and (3) the proposed 14th amendment was never ratified by æ of the States as required by Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Hence, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is null and void. Therefore, all babies born under the guise of this amendment are not citizens for that reason. It should be noted that Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause defined the citizens as being all other persons, but not those who are foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. How can the courts misinterpret that definition, unless they have ulterior motives? How can the government continue to perpetuate such a lie?
In the Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, H7161, Mr. John Rarick introduced House Concurrent Resolution 208 to renounce the validity of the 14th Amendment, presented all the documented historic evidence gathered by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana, and came to the inescapable conclusion that the 14th Amendment never was validly adopted. He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment (Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972) in spite of those who claimed it was valid. Mr. Rarick further remarked, courts brushed aside constitutional questions as though they did not exist . It is criminal that Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment hiding behind their excuse that it is a political question.

Edward J. Erler testifying before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, June 25, 1997 said, If Americans held to the notion of birth-right citizenship, they would have been incapable of declaring their independence from Britain!

The People of this Nation are owed an explanation why government refuses to address the issue of "birthright citizenship" as currently being interpreted under the citizenship clause.

Jack M. Moutrie
Meridian, Idaho - USA


Related Column:

Anchor babies By BONNIE ERBE...
May 16, 2005


Note: Comments published on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.


Write a Letter -------Read Letters

E-mail the Editor

Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska