Nov 05 2018

Picking & Choosing

by Caren Cowan, Executive Director,
New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association
Read this article & more in New Mexico Stockman Magazine

That’s what some folks want to do with the U.S. Constitution. The President couldn’t be right in wanting to block citizenship for children born to illegal aliens in our county according to some. Yet, in their eyes, the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to bear arms.

I really don’t know what millennials were taught about the Constitution, but I would guess that many of you took the same high school classes I did. I came away believing that anyone born in the United States was automatically a citizen.

However, working for more than two decades with Karen Budd Falen, I have learned that often what isn’t said in legal document is as important as what is said. Does the 14th Amendment apply to people in our country illegally?

The wording of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says

“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. 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.”

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” according to Mathew Spalding, associate vice president and dean of educational programs for Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, writing in the Wall Street Journal. As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally, writes Spalding.

The 14th Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used – and frequently litigated – phrase in the amendment is “equal protection of the laws”, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).

According to Fred Thompson acting as a lawyer on television’s Law & Order, the issue in Roe v. Wade is that there is no right of privacy in the 14th Amendment. It is amazing how fast Hollywood can come up with a television show on a current topic or dig one out of the archives that address that topic.

According to a commentator on Fox News, who is also a judge, the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case mentioned above is the only time Section 1 has ever been litigated. It should be noted that this case involved an individual born to Chinese legal residents in the US and the individual was granted citizenship.

There is no doubt if the President moves forward with a different interpretation of this Section that there will be many court cases on this issue to clarify what was really meant by it.

The 1866 Civil Right Acts and the 14th Amendment, become law after, in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens, even if they were free.

The Fourteenth Amendment, however, guaranteed that everyone born or naturalized in the United States and under its jurisdiction would be a United States citizen. It also ensured that federal citizenship was also made primary, which meant that states could not prevent freed slaves from obtaining state citizenship and thus federal citizenship. As such, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively overturned Sanford v. Scott.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court held that children born to members of Native American tribes governed by local tribal governments were not automatically granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, however, granted citizenship to Native Americans in 1924 when it passed the Indian Citizenship Act.

This may seem like an unusual topic to spend so much time on, however, when you are born and grow up on the Mexican border where family, friends and neighbors and local governments are struggling to maintain themselves in the face of ever-increasing numbers of illegal immigrants (from all over the world) who are streaming across the border almost unchecked, it is of interest.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the “anchor baby” issue, where illegals use any means possible to get to the US before they give birth, is a multi-billion dollar problem. Hospitals along the border are burdened with the cost of births, while education systems are taxed well beyond any reason to provide the education that is guaranteed to these children. This doesn’t even account for all the other public services that are afforded to people who don’t or can’t contribute to local tax bases.

I can already hear the “R” word out there. Anyone who knows me knows that couldn’t be further from the truth. Our country is a melding pot and has been for centuries. But at what point can our country and our children bear the weight of the world’s need?

It isn’t often mentioned, but immigrants were turned away from Ellis Island when they couldn’t meet the basic needs to become a citizen in the future.

Green Genocide?

There is a “green” group that proposes to eliminate Arlington, Virginia sports fields in favor of “open spaces.”  Not only do they oppose new fields, in some cases, a goal of this group is to de-commission current playing fields and convert those to open spaces. Their thinking is that Arlington’s fields are under-utilized, and that sports groups inflate their numbers and over-state their needs. They have proposed to eliminate 11 sports fields in Arlington over the next several years.

I am really confused… I thought sport fields were open space… AND do we expect less children in the future who need athletics and open space?

Mental, Emotional Abuse.

That isn’t the only thing you could call the past few months of political campaigning. There are good people running for office from both parties. I, like everyone else, have my own opinion of how I would like to see the election turn out. That’s our right as citizens of the U.S.

What’s not right is the really ugly turn of the political ads. New Mexico and Arizona have been forced to live through weeks of nothing but ugly commercials about our friends and neighbors. The campaigns in these states have drawn national attention for their defamatory statements.

If that isn’t mental and emotional abuse, I don’t know what is. I wonder if we could file a class action suit against both political parties and win damages. Or, maybe we could file suit for the obscene amounts of money that has been poured into campaigns. With all the problems around the world, we should have better things to do with our time and money.

I have harped on civility for the last few months. It is something that must be maintained at home and everywhere else you go. The divisiveness has got to stop. These mass killings at school, at places of worship, and everywhere else stem from the lack of control of one’s self.

I have said it all at least twice before and the issue has a fair amount of national attention. Surely it must be President Trump’s fault. I agree that I could live without his inflammatory tweets and statements.

But I agree that the media constantly hands him a raw deal. Just yesterday on the news there was footage of a reporter asking the President if he was a liar. I must have missed that class in journalism school.

After the Pittsburg shooting the President was asked if more protection in the synagogue might have reduced the number of people killed and injury. In response, he said that perhaps it would have helped. By the next morning partisan pundits were accusing him of blaming the victims for the shooting.

On the other hand there was a not very widely distributed interview with Hillary Clinton saying there was no way she plans on being civil.

And they wonder why people are developing a deep dislike for the media.

Cattlegrowers Foundation Update

The Cattlegrowers Foundation is celebrating its 20th year with big news. The Foundation, along with New Mexico State University (NMSU), are the recipients of a USDA Young Farmers & Ranchers Grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The three-year grant will focus on “Raising Ranchers,” the priority program for the Foundation. It will include training sessions around the state for beginning and other ranchers as well as a major seminar. Additionally, the grant will allow the purchase of portable equipment that can be used by beginning ranchers.

Work has already begun with the first meeting held in late August in conjunction with the National Reproduction Symposium hosted by NMSU. The NMSU Rancher Safety Training seminar was videoed and will soon be available on You Tube. There will some special emphasis on Raising Ranchers at the 2018 Joint Stockmen’s Convention.

Wolf Update

First, thank you to ALL the donors who contributed to the funding call to action last June. Generous members offered up $5,000 each to be matched. Thus far the endeavor raised more than $35,000!

The Federal District Court in Tucson has still has not issued a final decision in the
10 J rule case but briefs have been filed in the enviros move to try and have adult wolves released in Arizona and New Mexico immediately. We are awaiting a ruling on that issue as well.

Convention just around the corner!

As you will see as you read this magazine, the 2018 Joint Stockmen’s Convention is coming up on December 5 – 8 at the Sandia Resort just north of Albuquerque. The days are Wednesday through Saturday. This day change was made to allow us to use the new and much larger venue.

Plans are in the works for a killer meeting with a little something for everyone. The room block is now open at Sandia. The reservation deadline is November 13th. Call the Sandia Resort & Casino for room reservations 1-877-272-9199. Ask for the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association or Joint Stockmen rate of $149+ tax.

We look forward to seeing you there!      

Source: New Mexico Stockman, November 2018