The Fulford File, By James Fulford

Children of an Invading Army

“Alexander James Frank Brimelow is an American,
although I was still a British subject and his mother a
Canadian when he shot into the New York delivery room,
yelling indignantly, one summer dawn in 1991. This is
because of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It states 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.`

“The

14th Amendment w
as passed after the Civil War in an
attempt to stop Southern states denying their newly
freed slaves the full rights of citizens. But the
wording is general. So it has been interpreted to mean
that any child born in the United States is
automatically a citizen. Even if its mother is a
foreigner. Even if she`s just passing through.

“I am delighted that Alexander is an American.
However, I do feel slightly, well, guilty that his
fellow Americans had so little choice in the matter. But
at least Maggy and I had applied for and been granted
legal permission to live in the United States. There are
currently an estimated 3.5 million to 4 million
foreigners who have just arrived and settled here in
defiance of American law. When these illegal immigrants
have children in the United States, why, those children
are automatically American citizens too.

“And right now, two-thirds of births in Los Angeles
County hospitals are to illegal-immigrant mothers.

“All of which is just another example of one of my
central themes:The United States has lost control of its
borders…”

Peter
Brimelow,
writing in

Alien Nation
,
1995


“The assumption that Hamdi is a
citizen ignores the critical phrase

`subject to the jurisdiction thereof.`
That
phrase means United States citizenship requires more
than the accident of being born on U.S. soil—an
allegiance to the United States is necessary.


“Yaser Hamdi`s parents were Saudi
citizens. They were working in the U.S. temporarily.
They had no intention of staying or pursuing American
citizenship. They were not fully “subject to the
jurisdiction” of the United States.


“For example, Mr. Hamdi Sr. could not
be

drafted
into the

United States military
. Mr. and Mrs. Hamdi could not
be guilty of

treason
—they owed no allegiance to the United
States. Neither does their Saudi son.


“We are filing this

amicus brief
to alert the Court to the broad
ramifications for the future of the United States of the
erroneous presumption of citizenship for an enemy alien
such as Hamdi who does not now have, and never had, any

allegiance
to the United States.”

The
Citizen Child Clause: "A Huge Hidden Cost"

Remarks by Edith Hakola, Executive Vice President,

The Center for American Unity
, to a Press lunch at
Washington D.C.`s

Capitol Hill Club
to announce the Center`s Amicus
Brief In

The


Hamdi Case
, March 25, 2004

Yesterday, the
Supreme Court handed down decisions in various detention
cases, including the Hamdi case. This involved an
Arab whose U.S. citizenship comes from his birth in
Louisiana in 1980, when his parents were briefly
contract workers in the United States. 

Very shortly
after Hamdi`s birth, he went to Saudi Arabia, where he
absorbed the

typical
Arab/Muslim

hatred
of America and went off to fight in
Afghanistan, where he was captured.

The Court
dodged—except for a hint by two dissenting justices—the
question VDARE.com and the Center for American Unity
raised in its amicus brief.

This was not,
“Can Hamdi be locked up for being a Muslim terrorist, in
spite of his American Citizenship?”
but—“Why is
he

considered an American citizen at all
?”
(Click

here
CAU Press Release on Hamdi decision).

Consider the
following hypothetical case:

Imagine that
an invading army enters the United States, wearing uniforms
and carrying arms, and behaving exactly like an army,
but bringing their wives.

This is what the
European armies of the early nineteenth century did,
during the

Napoleonic War
s, after all. Women frequently gave
birth in

foreign countries.

If this
hypothetical invading army stayed long enough to have
children, would the enemy soldiers` sons and daughters
be American citizens?

Would those
children have the right to return to the US, years
later, and sponsor their soldier fathers, who would
presumably have been

expelled
in this hypothetical war?

The idea is
ridiculous.

However, it
happens today that the

illegal immigrant population
is larger than
an invading army. And the

American-born children
of that invading army are
automatically citizens today—under what is merely an
interpretation
of the

Fourteenth Amendment.


Many other countries
have limited “birthright
citizenship”
to citizens and legal residents.

The United
States can too. All it would require would be a small
amount of backbone in the Executive Branch, and/or a
small amount of common sense in the Judicial Branch,
and/or a little concern for the national interest in the
Legislative Branch.

This year,
though, all three seem to be absent.