birthright citizenship is a lie

for a purpose

Many years ago, there was a phrase: Win on Sunday, sell on Monday, a euphonious statement coined in the world of racing. The goal; sell product to the masses! A win-win and intended consequence. But, like all things good, government stepped in, and the world of racing became a sport the antithesis of the original. A reimagining by those in control. Those involved in the sport, either competitor, or spectator, not able to decide by choice, but regulated by government through force; the halcyon days of “run what ya brung,” faded into the history books of yesteryear. Although, there was an upside, depending on one’s viewpoint. Legislators saw the value in the slogan, paraphrasing: Lie on Sunday, cheat on Monday, win on Tuesday. Their trophy; power. Which brings up the adage: Law of unintended consequences.

Like Newton’s law of motion, the law of unintended consequences is a byproduct of an intentional consequence. To explain, I was born two days after Christmas, the gift no one wanted. At least in the minds of my three older sisters. And with their holiday angst regarding my birth, another issue presented, being an unintended consequence of their intended consequences for retribution to me messing up their world. I learned to run like hell before I could walk. Each instance, not law applied, but an action taken. And, to further elucidate my philosophical viewpoint, back in my plant manager days, I was involved in a work transition to remove the word “accident” (unintended consequence) from all plant employee’s vernacular, and in place, use “incident” (a non-deliberate consequence). The premise; there’s no such thing as an accident. Not necessarily where one goes and deliberately does something negative, but loses focus, gets distracted, misses a step, overlooks a process, or a multitude of factors and does something incorrectly. The result; injury. The company’s reasoning was the connotation of an accident not bearing fault; “It just happened.” Whereas an incident finds and place’s fault, achieving a corrective action to prevent future events from happening. An action resulting in a reaction.

Which brings full circle the current state of America, and whether all the discombobulations taking place are intentional consequences through derived outcomes, or unintentional consequences of action. Think along the vein of false truths being a concomitant of deceit. Although, one must be able to perceive the difference between them, including how to arrive at the distinction: Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character. (Federalist 70)

Thus, continuing in the realm of adages, my dad taught me one while purchasing a car at sixteen. While I was more interested in the glitter of the outside versus the integrity of what lay beneath the hood – his words; “Buyer beware.” I didn’t listen. In the end, it cost more than it was worth, and the memories are better than the reality, having learned mechanics the hard way. An unintended consequence due to an intended consequence of believing everything that glitters is gold, instead of listening to his sage advice. Which brings us to politically motivated deceit through a discombobulation of intended and unintended consequences, including the Constitution. The Framers, deliberate in its design and execution, so much, wording is expressly included as well as excluded. Thus, in order to discern, one needs to understand intent: With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and Independence. (Federalist 2)

Intent being “one connected country to one united people, speaking the same language, [utilizing] the same principles of government.” Yet, in the Constitution, of words excluded, one being immigration, even though there are more people entering the country illegally than legally today. And whom: State or Federal has the power to control? An epic dilemma portending an absolute national failure at some point, unless the whole point is for an intended consequence: In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…. (Teddy Roosevelt)

And food for thought to an intended consequence of the illegal immigration dilemma facing the nation today; amnesty, a “pathway to citizenship,” for vote buying, albeit unconstitutional - To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (Article I/Section 8). And following current dogma, no longer do the above words of Teddy Roosevelt have a place in American society. A sad testament of our national pride lost. So, while every coin has two sides, as well, Democrats and Republicans are opposites yet should singularly serve a purpose: protect and defend the Constitution. Although, going back timewise, after the Civil War, the issue of slaves becoming citizens was as tenuous as the war itself. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery, but issues only worsened. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was in response, with an opening paragraph outlining citizenship: That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power (emphasis added), excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; …

Except today, with the illegal immigration fiasco wreaking havoc across the nation, if one is here illegally and gives birth, that child is deemed “natural born,” even though all would be considered subjects of a foreign government, not being citizens of the United States. The twisting of truth now supposedly grounded in the fourteenth amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (emphasis added – think slave), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (14^th Amendment/Section1).

But if the desire is political scheming, imagine one’s purpose of clarity becoming another’s obfuscation of truth? Yet the fourteenth’s intent regarding former slaves holding full citizenship: 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 (emphasis added). 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 issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country (Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan/fourteenth amendment author).

The intent then pitted against the immigration trend today. An ideal for nefarious purposes, including a door opening placing an intended consequence; non-assimilated, loyalty misplaced people. For thought, one should always question political pontifications, remembering: A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government (Federalist 70). So, to offer a closing perspective for thought. The slave trade in America started under British rule at Jamestown in 1619. Thus, to call it America’s original sin, disingenuous at best. It was a well-established institution long before the United States was even a glimmer in one’s eye. And the interesting aspect at the time: there were more indentured (white) servants than actual slaves. Although, the trend started to reverse around 1680. Then the Constitution was ratified in 1787, ending the Articles of Confederation. Those having maintained slavery into perpetuity.

And yes, the Constitution had Article I/Section 2/3^rd Clause, 3/5ths rule. But the 14^th Amendment Section 2 replaced such, ending the 3/5ths rule. And one can argue ad nauseum otherwise, but the reality of Southern Democrats and Anti-Federalists kept slavery intact when Federalists wanted the trade abolished. The 3/5ths rule a compromise to ratify the Constitution, requiring the 14^th Amendment, Section1, ratified in 1868, to correct. To which, if common sense was prevalent, one would think; slaves had been in the country for centuries (Jamestown), with generations thereafter never having set foot, seen, or been part of their former homeland. And while the slave trade today probably has a wider footprint of individuals forced into slavery, our government having surrendered American soil to the cartels, it is unadulterated bullshit to compare an illegal crossing into the States and having a child to the slaves who were who were sold into servitude by their home country. No one forced an illegal to come here. Nor were they sold or held in bondage for another’s monetary profit through government sanction. My God people: Wake up! This is an intended consequential mess of epic proportions.

Euphonious: pleasing to the ear

Concomitant: something that accompanies or is collaterally connected with something else