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 recent court decisions about S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, and Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning gay marriage in California, have something in common. They both involve people calling certain laws unconstitutional.

Last Wednesday, Federal Judge Susan Bolton ordered an injunction against some parts of Arizona’s immigration law in response to a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice, which claims the law is unconstitutional because the federal government, not the states, should have the power to regulate immigration. This Wednesday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, calling it unconstitutional.

I have a question for judges, lawyers, the Department of Justice, and America as a whole: if you’re going to be calling laws unconstitutional, aren’t there better laws to call unconstitutional than these?

I am opposed to one part of the Arizona law – the part that makes illegal “the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.” Simply existing, legally, in this country but without registration papers does not hurt anyone or violate anyone’s rights. But the rest of the law isn’t bad. Illegal immigration is a serious problem, and I applaud Arizona’s attempt to deal with it.

I don’t think that Proposition 8 violates anyone’s rights at all, because I don’t think that marriage is a right, per se. If the government cared about equality, they would stop granting government recognition to marriages entirely and leave this to individuals and private organizations. Rewarding people for committing to a relationship, whether gay or straight, sends the unfair, false message that couples are superior to single people.

Now for some laws that are really unconstitutional and severely violate people’s rights:

• The Durham-Humphrey Amendment: Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the power to ban people from taking medications without a doctor’s permission. Has this law ever been challenged in court? Not to my knowledge.
• The TSA’s use of full-body scanners as a primary method of airport security screening: To perform highly invasive searches on millions of people who aren’t even suspected of any crimes blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment.
• The individual health insurance mandate: The power to regulate interstate commerce does not mean the power to force people to engage in commerce.

I understand that obviously, the particular judges who made the rulings in Arizona and California have never, to my knowledge, had the opportunity to address these other laws…so the individual judges are not being hypocritical. But it says something about America as a whole that the government calls two mostly good laws unconstitutional while at least three horribly anti-liberty laws are currently considered perfectly constitutional. Hopefully liberty’s brave friends at EPIC and in Virginia will change this.

Further reading:

Court Order about Arizona law (PDF)

Photo credits: Prop 8 rally by 1FlatWorld (CC ASA 2.0); immigration law protest by Fibonacci Blue (CC ASA 2.0)

As you know by now if you haven’t been living under a rock, the state of Arizona passed an illegal immigration crackdown bill, which criminalizes illegal immigration and transporting illegal immigrants under state law and allows police, if there is reasonable suspicion, to question people about their immigration status and arrest them if they cannot prove they are legal residents.

Does this bill violate people’s civil rights as its opponents claim? Well, making illegal immigration a crime is a no brainer – that’s why it’s called illegal immigration. Cracking down on illegal immigration is something America needs right now. It’s never a good thing to have people benefitting from government services without paying taxes, and that is what most illegal immigrants do. I’m also not immensely worried that the bill will cause racial profiling, as it specifies that race or ethnicity is not sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion.

However, I don’t like the idea of a law requiring people to prove their innocence instead of the state having to prove their guilt. The presumption of innocence is a central part of the American legal system, and it should stay that way. People should not have to carry papers around to prove to police that they are not illegal immigrants; the police should have to prove that they are.

If there is one rule that everyone, especially the government, should follow, it is this: Don’t punish innocent people. You can ban something without requiring everyone who is suspected of it to prove that they are innocent. Murder is illegal, but the government has to prove people’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This same should be true of illegal immigration. I strongly support cracking down on illegal immigrants, but requiring people to prove their innocence is not the way to do it.

This doesn’t happen every day. I think I just found the most preposterous statement I’ve ever heard or read.

According to Dr. Mark Einstein, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center in New York,

“Quite frankly, from a science standpoint and outreach, everyone does ultimately as an adult have sex.”

This blatantly false statement came to my attention in an article from ABC about British girl Simone Davis, who wants to become a US citizen but can’t because she is celibate and doesn’t want the HPV vaccine Gardasil. Apparently, the 1996 Immigration and Naturalization Act requires all immigrants to receive all vaccinations recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, and Gardasil was added to that list in 2008.

This raises several questions, including…

• What is the rationale behind requiring all immigrants to get a vaccine for a disease that only people who have sex can get?
• Does the government even have a right to require vaccines to become a permanent resident or citizen?
• Why didn’t I know about this sooner?
• How could anyone with half a brain say that everyone has sex?
• How did such a moron become an associate professor?
• Why does someone so stupid have the name Einstein?

Obviously, requiring the HPV vaccine in order to become a U.S. permanent resident is outrageous. First of all, I don’t think the government has any right to require vaccines of anyone, for any reason. Second, they definitely don’t have a right to require a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted disease because, contrary to Dr. Einstein’s claim, not everyone has sex.

I am opposed to giving STD vaccines to children, let alone requiring them. No one should get such a vaccine against their will, and in the case of children it is usually the parents who make decisions about medical treatment, not the children themselves. People themselves, not their parents, should have to freely consent in order to receive an STD vaccine. Additionally, recommending Gardasil sexualizes girls and is extremely offensive to asexual and celibate people, because it sends the message that all girls will have sex, a message that is false.

Mark Einstein might just be my new least favorite person in the world. How could someone with an IQ above 10 possibly believe that all adults have sex? This is incredibly insulting to asexuals and other people who choose not to have sex. Just because Dr. Einstein has sex (and I assume he does or else he wouldn’t have said what he said) does not mean that everyone else does. I love flags, but do I assume that everyone else loves flags, too? No. I hate rainy weather, but do I assume everyone else does, too? No. I think you get the picture. Einstein is bigoted and intolerant to assume that everyone does what he does and to deny the existence of people who are different from him. Apparently Einstein thinks that Isaac Newton never existed, or Immanuel Kant, or Jesus, to give just a few examples. Also, no popes or priests or nuns or monks have ever existed either, I guess. To repeat a fact that should be obvious to everyone,

NOT EVERYONE HAS SEX.

I also want to criticize the mainstream media for not calling more attention to this story, both the requirement of Gardasil in 2008 and Simone’s experience. This is an atrocity, and all Americans should be outraged about it! Also, ABC erred, in my opinion, by writing that Einstein “debunks Simone’s claim that she doesn’t need the vaccine because she is not having sex.” This implies that Einstein is right and Simone is wrong, while the opposite is actually true. The article should read “incorrectly attempts to debunk,” or at least “attempts to debunk” or “argues against.”

Citizenship and Immigration Services needs to take Gardasil off the required vaccines list. Simone seems like a strong girl of good moral character, who thinks for herself instead of having sex and mindlessly agreeing with what everyone else says. We should be encouraging more people like her to come to America!

Is it just me, or is the Bush family turning into a bunch of liberals? I learned recently that both George W. and Jeb Bush, while serving as governors of Texas and Florida, respectively, have signed bills guaranteeing women the right to breastfeed their babies in public, something I completely oppose.

Now President Bush is saying he’s “happy” about Mary Cheney’s pregnancy with her lesbian partner, and Jeb is bashing Congressman Tom Tancredo for his brave comments, of which any conservative should be proud. Last month, Tancredo compared Miami to a “third world country” because it is filled with non-English speaking non-whites who refuse to look, speak, act, and think like true Americans. All I can say is that Tancredo is right on! Yet Jeb called him a “nut.” What a complete loser! Shame on you, Governor Bush.

Rep. Tancredo, however, seems like a patriotic, intelligent man. Therefore, he is my pick for Person of the Week! Visit his site at http://tancredo.house.gov.

Good job, Senator Arlen Specter! Although unfortunately he says that he is “totally opposed” to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he does believe that the amendment deserves to be debated in the Senate. Today, ater Specter, a Republican, had a shouting match with Democrat Russ Feingold, a Senate committee approved the amendment, sending it to the Senate for debate. At one point, Specter told Feingold, “I don’t need to be lectured by you.” Later, Specter bade Feingold “good riddance” as the latter stormed out.

Another event in the news that is just as despicable as gay marriage is the development of a vaccine for cervical cancer. The FDA will probably approve this abomination, and debate is raging on whether or not to have all young girls receive this injection!!

I object to the vaccine on two levels:

• First, it violates the rights of children. Parents will be the ones to decide whether or not the children receive the injections. This is completely irrational, as the children, not the parents, will receive the shots, and therefore should be the ones to decide whether or not the shots are given. Vaccines are slightly physically painful, but their true pain is a result of the dread that victims experience, a dread that overshadows the life of any rational person for the entire time the person knows that they will be given a shot in the future. It is said that shots only hurt for a second, but this is a blatant fallacy: shots inflict psychological pain for a lifetime. If advocates of the evil plan to vaccinate 9- and 11-year old girls succeed, the shots will hurt these girls for at least 9 or 11 years (and probably more because the vaccine only lasts for 4 years and therefore will be re-administered)!
• Second, I object to the vaccine because its implementation carries the assumption that all females will become sexually active. Cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease, and some people want children to be vaccinated for it! This assumption is extraordinarily offensive to celibate individuals like myself. Obviously, there is at least one girl in the world (myself) who will be celibate forever, and the existence of just one celibate individual is enough to completely invalidate the presumption upon which the cervical canver vaccination plan is based. It is irrelevant how many sexual women the vaccine benefits; the vaccine violates the rights of all celibates and asexuals of the world by invalidating their existence, and therefore is immoral and unjustified. The idea of thinking of beautiful, innocent little girls as people who will become sexual is twisted. I will never willingly receive a cervical cancer vaccine, and if the members of the FDA have any brains at all, they will vote this vaccine down!

In older news, the Senate did a good job by approving the construction of a heavy-duty fence along the Mexican border, but did a bad job by approving a plan for U.S. citizenship for some illegal immigrants. The U.S. needs to decrease its population, and deporting people who can’t speak English and have no loyalty to America is one of the best, easiest ways to accomplish this goal.

Finally, some entertainment commentary: Congratulations to Aras for winning “Survivor” on Sunday – I liked him better than Danielle or Terry. Monday’s finale of “Prison Break” was excellent – one of my favorite parts was Haywire’s escape on the bike. Abruzzi was especially nasty, and I almost felt bad for T-Bag. And, last but not least, I predict that Taylor will win “American Idol.”

Check back for more rants; I am in a ranty mood, as some of my favorite issues, such as immigration and gay marriage, have been in the news a lot lately!

Now for the immigration rant that I promised:

As many of you know, thanks to large-scale protests, the government is now considering allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens after living in the US for six years. I disagree with this proposed law. In my opinion, illegal immigrants should be immediately kicked out of America and should never be allowed to come back! Our country is overpopluated (I bet mostly because of illegal immigrants who always seem to be having babies at a young age), and the last thing it needs is more people in it! Especially people who are likely to have babies when they are teenagers and therefore grow in numbers more quickly, on average, than native-born Americans!

I know that many people will interpret this as racist, but I will say it anyway: Not counting the time when Indians inhabited America, this country has historically been predominantly white, and it ought to remain so. There is nothing wrong with having a few blacks, Asians, and Latinos (maybe up to 10% of our population), but it is not good when non-whites comprise over 50% of the population in some parts of America. I believe that it is important for 30% of America’s population to have blond hair, 30% to have brown hair, 30% to have black hair, and the remaining 10% to have red hair, or at least as close to that ratio as possible. Also, there should be roughly the same number of people with brown eyes as blue. In my opinion, these are the ideal ratios for a diverse, aesthetically pleasing population. Because non-whites almost always have dark hair and brown eyes, the large numbers of them are fouling up America’s physical diversity ratios. Asia, a huge continent, is predominantly Asian, South America is predominantly Latino, and Africa is primarily black, and that’s fine. The US is not part of Asia, South America, or Africa, so it ought to be predominantly white. Not to mention that fact that America has traditionally been, and ought to remain, an English-speaking country!

In conclusion, illegal immigrants are ruining America’s culture and must be stopped.