The Freedom Bulletin

House Minority Leader John Boehner just said that it is “worth considering” to change the policy of granting U.S. citizenship to everyone who is born in this country, even children of illegal immigrants. Right now, the Fourteenth Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In addition to Boehner, Senators John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Sessions have expressed interest in the possibility of changing this amendment or interpreting it differently so that children of illegal immigrants are not automatically citizens.

I like this idea and am glad to see it being discussed by mainstream politicians. Where someone happens to be born is morally arbitrary – obviously, no one chooses where to be born – so there is no reason why being born in a country should automatically make one a citizen. It would make more sense for children to have the same citizenship as their parents, or have dual citizenship if their parents are citizens of two different countries. Being born in America does not guarantee that someone is going to be raised in the American culture or feel loyalty to America. Wouldn’t it make more sense for people to be, by default, citizens of the country whose culture they are raised in instead of the one where they happen to be born? Additionally, the last thing America needs is more incentives for illegal immigration, and revoking birthright citizenship would remove one such incentive.

This line of argument raises another question: Isn’t it just as arbitrary to base citizenship on who one’s parents are, as opposed to where one is born? To some extent, yes. A baby who is born in America to parents who have lived here their whole lives has not done anything more to earn citizenship than a baby born here to illegal immigrants. In a way, it doesn’t make sense to automatically make newborn babies citizens of any country at all. In an ideal system, perhaps people could be born citizens of no country and then as they mature they could decide whether they want to be citizens of the country they live in, the country their parents are from, or another country entirely. They could then take the required citizenship tests, if any. That way, people could freely choose which country to call home, and citizenship would be something that people earn instead of being automatically given based on arbitrary factors.

A radical idea, I know, but repealing birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants would be a step in the right direction.

The Supreme Court ruled today in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government. The case centered around Chicago’s ban of basically all handguns, which will likely be repealed as a result of the ruling.

The decision is not perfect – it allows some state and local gun restrictions, just not those that ban handguns entirely. Paul Helmke, the head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, was “reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution.” But this is still a victory for liberty because the court has upheld one of our fundamental rights, the right to bear arms, and sent a message to state governments that they cannot trample all over people’s freedoms just because they aren’t the federal government.

Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute wrote as much:

“The Fourteenth Amendment, coming on the heels of the Civil War, says clearly that never again would the Constitution tolerate state oppressions and that all individuals possess certain fundamental rights. And it is equally clear that the right to keep and bear arms is one of those deeply rooted fundamental rights, not least because the Framers thought so highly of it as to enumerate it in the Second Amendment.”

Otis McDonald, the Chicago grandfather and community leader who brought the lawsuit against his city, brought up another positive aspect of the decision, in addition to preserving freedom:

“This will make criminals think twice. If you have the right to have a handgun in your house, even if you don’t have a gun, that will give criminals a second thought, a third thought about breaking in to your house.”

Full text of the decision (PDF)

Gun pictures thanks to Adams Guns

On Cinco de Mayo, two high school students in California wore American flag t-shirts to school. The principal told them to either take the shirts off or wear them inside out, calling them “incendiary.” Now the two boys and their parents are suing the school system, claiming that the school’s actions violated their constitutional rights:

Kendall and Joy Jones; John and Dianna Dariano, parents of Matthew Dariano; and Kurt and Julie Ann Fagerstrom, parents of Dominic Maciel, are asking a judge to rule that what happened May 5 at Live Oak violated the First and Fourteenth amendments, and that the school district’s policy regarding student speech is too vague.

The suit also asks for “nominal damages” and to award attorneys’ fees.

The Morgan Hill Unified School District, Live Oak Principal Nick Boden and Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez are named as the defendants.

Some people might call this lawsuit frivolous, but I think it has merit. No one should be banned from showing pride in their country, even during the holiday of another country. So many teenagers try to be cool and fit in at all costs that it’s a breath of fresh air to hear about teens showing their patriotism and standing up for what they believe in. It’s too bad that the Fourth of July doesn’t fall during the school year, because it would be interesting to see if the school allowed students to wear Mexican flag t-shirts on America’s holiday.

Complaint (PDF), thanks to KSBW-TV via the Examiner