Who is a Natural Born Citizen? Me, You, Obama, Cruz? Perhaps we have never asked the Question!

OK, here we go again taking on a very large topic with just some good old common sense and easy to follow references.  One of the largest problems confronting us today is the "undocumented people and economy" which is created when participants are not in the system.  Most specifically I think of illegal immigrants and drug sales.  We will get to the drug sales in a future column but today we are focusing on what we now refer to as "Illegal Immigration" and "Birthright Citizenship". 

By some sources, there are 11,000,000 - 25,000,000 "illegal aliens", "undocumented immigrants", "criminals" whatever you want to call them here right now.  In addition, some 8% of the babies born in America right now are born to illegals.  The point of this discussion is not to illustrate all the negatives this creates in society (that has been done well by others and is pretty obvious in general), but to look at it more simply in terms of common sense and a general "why would we tolerate this" analysis.  The Founders likely did not contemplate that the government would abdicate its duty and allow a problem like this to develop into such  gigantic problem.   

Since everyone originally was an immigrant the Founders came up with language and a process to address citizenship.  As always I like to start with that pesky Constitution.  Let's have a look at it.  First we have to read the actual language as written in the Constitution Article 2 that relates to this "citizenship issue" and of course it does not directly relate to this illegal problem we are discussing.

The Constitution does not outright declare what an American Citizen is.  It does define who you need to be in terms of birthright to be President and it is from this clause that most discussions begin.  We are all in agreement that the Founders were adamant to prevent a British Citizen (themselves excluded perhaps) from ever being President.  So let's continue from there.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Whew.  That is quite a mouthful.  But these Founding Fathers were men of letters and wrote the rules very consciously and specifically (they were not just sneaky lawyers and lobbyists like we have today).  Sometimes it is tricky to figure out what they meant and in a couple instances we have had to fix things that were wrong or unclear.  In this instance, this terminology has not really been vetted by the highest courts.  Most Courts with the opportunity have chickened out including the Supremes.  But at CitizenBill.com we never chicken out.  Let's take this one on, seems kind of simple to me.

 

First we can strip that original phrase down to remove any language that could not apply to today or is not needed because we do not have any argument with.  Here is again:

"No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President ... and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

So there we have it, we have stripped down a harder to grasp clause into something very simple that we can further dissect into its final components.  Then we can apply that knowledge/conclusion to the argument at hand.  And seems to me we can get rid of the fourteen years as long as we adequately provide for it in our final argument.  Seems simple enough the founders did not want you to move away most of your life and come back to be President.  So lets let rid of that.  Now we are down to:

"No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President". 

Now all we have to do is define "natural born" and "Citizen" and we should have our answer.  Let's start with natural born.  I don't think the founders were actually contemplating "in vitro" or test tube babies so that cannot be what they meant.  In fact, in the First Naturalization Act of 1790 there was a "probationary period" where fellow citizens would determine if you have the correct character to be an American.  Later we codified it more with the 14th Amendment. 

The Fourteen Amendment defined Citizens.. "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."  Let's look at that one again and emphasis one clause that seems missing from the present discussion.

"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."

Are "illegal aliens" (ok undocumented immigrants for the politically correct Obama crowd) "subject to our jurisdiction"?  I would make the argument that their very illegality makes them NOT subject to "our jurisdiction thereof".  And if the parents are not here legally and subject to our rules and jurisdiction, then so to their children would not be subject to it either.  Thus in this scenario which is playing out every day in America, in no way can they be conferred "Citizen" status solely by virtue of the physical location of their birth. 

 

Does it make sense that the Founders would allow for citizenship by parents who are acting illegally?  They mere fact that someone could sneak in illegally or swim a river does not mean they can "squat Americans" simply by sneaking in or getting to the other side or the river?  I do not believe that is what anyone past or present, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal ever intended.  And since these numbers represent a significant amount of our people (10% of the workforce in a land of 25% unemployment), I think it is time we had the honest discussion and clarified this language (for those taking advantage of it and honestly saying it was not clear).  Both Parties seem to be weak hoping for votes or in todays system no negative publicity ("do nothing" is a safe course of action for political types).

Until we fix this (which I think could be done easily with a stroke of the pen.. use one of those Executive Orders we seem to flop about daily) our borders are worthless and legal immigration a waste of time (god bless the good folks who when through the system the correct way).  We need to fix this ambiguity in the language and legalize the folks already here.  Anyone so legalized can never vote, and can participate in social security, medicare etc to the extent of their contribution just like Americans.  But I will flush this plan out elsewhere.  That is all the Labor for today! 

 

God Bless Citizen Bill, his Family and all his Friends.

Time to STOP the Gerrymandering!

Courtesy of publicmapping.org

OK another pet peeve I have right now is all the money and efforts going into what we commonly call "redistricting" or gerrymandering.

Whether it is your local school district, your state or federal representatives or even your City Council person, they are all involved in redistricting.  And none of them have the skill sets required to do this right.  And they are all conflicted.  And they waste valuable time and resources.  So let's fix it.

I hereby call upon all government or civic agencies with the need to "redistrict" to hire your local college or university "math program" to do the analysis for you.  Think of the beauty of this.

First we will be using math and Google Earth to do this not some pencils and guesstimates of who/what/where.

Second, half the college kids are not local so they are not predisposed to "carve up precincts" or manufacture "finger districts" like the sillies today always seem to do.

Third, with the proper formulation of the process, we can "redistrict" whenever we need to not because we "want to" (to protect someone or get rid of someone).

Fourth, think of the cost savings in terms of both expense savings and time. The current redistricting process is very laborious with many meeting and much expense. This is all saved with a better product.

Here are just a few of the recent districts we somehow agreed on.

OK so now what we need to do is create an academic program to do this. Should be some simple demographic analysis and some "grid management" and viola I would think we could create a better system than what we presently do and our elected sillies could move on to real business (like if you need an ID to vote).

Ten simple steps to fix the economy!

There are lots of folks are out there complaining about this or that with no real answers of vision worthy of sharing.  But hopefully I am more than that, a doer not just a talker a problem solver not a problem maker. 

Here are my 10 common sense ideas for addressing our current society problems which mostly are economic and political in nature (meaning man made). 

Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.

1. All numbers must be fully shown with no "adjustments", revisions, abbreviations or summary allowed (millions, thousands, etc.).  Likewise all legislation has to be simplified and written for the average reader without a bunch of corrollarys or external references.  The truth cannot be adjusted, abbreviated or footnoted, nor should there be a pile of unrelated pork attached to hurricane relief legislation.
2. The government must "own the currency/bank" and the present Federal Reserve System must be changed.  The American taxpayer should not "borrow" to pay interest on its own money.  Annually, the deficit/surplus should be calculated and announced and the money supply adjusted accordingly.
3. Every American should contribute and pay some Federal Income Tax.  The calculation and process should be very simple (like no deductions or exemptions).  You could have 3 nominal rates 2%, 12% and 30%.
4. Long term investments and capital gains tax rates are capped at 25% for 10 years at a time and revisted every 5  (no threat of "politics" every four years which stifles investment and behavior). 
5. No "multi national" publically traded company can pay its CEO more than it pays in actual USA income taxes.
6. All "election" contributions are limited to "individuals" with a $50,000 individual max contribution and a clause that all contributions can only be made to folks that the individual can actually vote for.
7. Creation of E-Vote-Verification system to create absolute integrity and trust in the voting system.
8. Consume responsibly and locally from known vendors all things considered.  Pay a little more to your neighbor or friend.  A quality merchant is a rare thing and should be cherished.
9. Do not pay "unemployment" benefits for physically and mentally fit individuals.  This is the responsibility of the family or the church NOT the government.  There is employment for everyone although there is structural pain sometimes.
10. Do not have a "minimum wage" but do require all wages to be paid through the system (no under the table or unsubstantiated 1099 cash payments). 

Presidential Debates -- These were not!

Did any of you watch this year's Presidential Debates?  Pretty exciting huh? 

Honestly, I am not sure what kind of idiot you would have to be to NOT have made up your mind prior to this debate.  But nevertheless I think the debates could have merit and that we should continue this tradition but we have to fix the format.

 

As always, let's start the discussion with a little history lesson.  The first "televised" Presidental Debates occured in 1960 and were sponsored by the television networks themselves.  The 1960 Debate was between Richard Nixon and John Kenneday and was watched by 61% of the potential voters or 66.4 million viewers (the third debate in 2012 was watched by 24.6% of the potential voters or 59.2 million views .. but it was up against Monday Night Football Source, Source). 

 

In 1976, the Debate was sponsored by the independent League of Women Voters (Gerald Ford versus Jimmy Carter).  In 1980, we see the appearance of the first Independance particpant in the Debate, John Anderson a former congressman from Illinois.  It was their (LWV) practice to include ALL candidates who had the credentials to be on the ballot. 

 

However by 1988, politics had intervened and the independent and non-partisan League of Women Voters refused to bend to Democratic and Republican pressures to draw up a contract prior to the 1988 presidential debates.  The "Partys" wanted to limit particiaption to their candidates or someone who had equal stature (which meant nobody else since there was no such group).  When asked why they (LWV) withdrew from participation, their President Nancy Neuman said of the situation:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. (Source)

Since 1988, the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit corporation became responsible for the Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates.  (non-profit does not mean pure)  According to their new rules, all third-party candidates must have at least 15 percent support in at least five national polls to participate in the Debate.   While 15% does not sound like a lot at first, remember that the winner will likely have 55% of the vote POST debate and election.  It is almost impossible for a third party candidate to poll at 15% PRIOR to the Debate since most folks have not heard of them. 

In the 2008 election, 77 individuals filed "Presidential Exploratory Papers" and while the Commission allowed the voters to hear from Rudy Guliana and Fred Thompson (who did not have the required pole numbers) they were "out of chairs" for Dr. Ron Paul a 30 year representative from Texas who did pole at the required level.  Party Politics owns the debates.

We have to change ownership of the debates back to the independent League of Women Voters or some other similar independent organization.  We need to allow all real candidates to be heard and hopefully a real leader will emerge.

As a patriotic precaution, I am grooming my son Griffin to be this leader guy if someone else does not jump in there prior.  I do not want that responsibility for him since he is just a happy normal kid.  But without leaders, his future and his children's future will be in trouble too.  God bless the Schofields and America.

Glad my car uses gas not water...

On the news we continue to hear how upset people are that oil is over $100 per barrel.  Some of the Sunday morning pundits were even saying oil could be headed to $200 in the future and to prepare for $4+ for a gallon of gas. 

This significant price increase seems so ominous. Add to that all the political uncertainties playing out across the Middle East right now and it makes for a seeming obvious consequence if oil is something you use. And if you are normal like me, and likely you then oil is something you consume (although hopefully whatever you drive gets better mileage that what I drive). 

Now the price of oil/gas/energy is upsetting.. UNTIL you calculate what Americans are now willing to pay for water. That’s right, gas is cheap when you buy water by the pint/liter at the same convenience store. And we live in a society on a planet that is 80% water. 

When the cost of water is more than oil (or certainly when it is 5X) we need to solve the problem or at least be aware of why we cannot solve it. My little goal is just to make folks aware of it. At the local convenience store at the end of my street, water is sold in 1 pint containers (.5 of a liter). According to my grade school math, there are 8 pints in a gallon. Thus, if water is $1 a pint, it would cost $8 a gallon. And if there are 55 gallons in a barrel, then a barrel of water costs almost 4 times as much as a barrel of oil. What, 4 times? 

That seems absurd when water comes out of the faucet for free (sort of, but paid for already for sure). We as a society need to make more much informed choices if we want to control our destiny. Stop paying for plasticized water would be a good first step. 

 God bless us all and Citizen Bill and his family. And check out the original digital art.