A response from Jim Rubens to Don's "Jim Rubens, possible Candidate for US Senate, at PBVRC Dinner" - Granite Grok

A response from Jim Rubens to Don’s “Jim Rubens, possible Candidate for US Senate, at PBVRC Dinner”

Heh!  We Groksters can pop up almost anywhere and at anytime and Grokster Don was at the PBVRC event (unbeknownest to Jim). Since Jim was on GrokTALK! yesterday, and with the Pemi-Baker talk as well, it seems that Jim would like some “clarification time” – we can do that!  Here is his first attempt in clarification:

Hi, Skip

RE: My Favorite Immigration Bill

Here is the substance of an email I sent out earlier today to folks at the Pemi-Baker GOP event and for distribution. Please post or comment. I’ve copied Paul Mirski because the subject involves the relative powers of courts and legislatures.

Thanks to the suggestions of Don Ewing, a GOP voter at the event, I dug into the issue of whether people born of illegal immigrants on US soil (“anchor babies”) are automatically US citizens.

I have concluded that — under the 14th Amendment (which reads in part, “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.”) — Congress has the power to define the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

As a result, I have endorsed a House bill, the Birthright Citizenship Bill of 2013, which defines the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as applying to persons born in the US if at least one parent was either a U.S. citizen or a national, a lawful permanent resident immigrant, or an immigrant performing active service in the U.S. military.

Background:

  • The U.S. and Canada the only developed nations to grant automatic citizenship. Almost all children now born in the U.S. are granted citizenship, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens. This creates an intense incentive for a continuing flow of illegal aliens seeking a better life for their children, but lacking the economic capacity to support them.
  • These developed nations have expressly ended the practice of granting automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens (year of repeal): Australia (2007), New Zealand (2005), Ireland (2005), France (1993), India (1987), Malta (1989), UK (1983), Portugal (1981).
  • In 2008, an estimated 8 percent of all U.S. births (350,000) are born to parents, at least one of whom was an illegal alien, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
  • The 14th amendment as interpreted by US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) finds that a baby born here of parents domiciled here, even if citizens of a foreign nation, are citizens. This opinion was confirmed in in 1982 in the narrowly-decided (5-4) Plyler v. Doe. While the Supreme Court may well strike down a provision like that in the Birthright Citizenship Bill, many think the Wong Kim Ark decision was in error and that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to strip Congress of its right to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Please be in touch anytime,

Jim Rubens

(603) 359-3300

Jim@JimRubens.com

And here is the second clarification:

Hi, Skip and Don,

More In response to Don post:

1. I oppose cap & trade. I do propose a far simpler approach: a revenue-neutral carbon tax of the type endorsed by economists Arthur Laffer and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, where 100% of revenues are used to cut taxes on wages and domestic corporate profits to stimulate job growth and US capital investment. Combined with this, as I noted during my remarks, I support phasing out energy subsidies and allowing the market to determine which energy sources are most economic.

2. The data I cite relative the US healthcare costs and outcomes/health status is from OECD not WHO and is discussed in my post here. The OECD outcomes/health status data is better and far more complete.

3. Republicans proposing repeal of Obamacare must propose a replacement, as outlined here. Republicans are not being responsible and cannot expect to win elections without addressing cost and quality problems in US healthcare. Thus, as I noted in my remarks, repeal and replace.

>