Warning

Warning - Revolution

© 2015 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 5.25.15

Updated 10.4.2020

This was written when I and just about everyone else thought Hillary would win the 2016 election. It was updated for current events.

We are experiencing an unprecedented revolution in America and we do not even know it.

Can you imagine a political system where one political party is able to anoint a candidate and one where that party has a clear majority of voters? In such an instance that party would run the country (maybe forever) and there would be no further need for political campaigns or conventions.

This is what happens in China and Russia.

Well, both of our political parties want nothing more than to attain such dominance. The “party” has become the end-all and the politicos will do or say just about anything for the sake of the party, e.g., Bill Clinton spoke highly of Obama at the 2012 Democratic convention despite the well-documented fact that they despise each other.

What the heck, if it is good for the party it must be done regardless of personal feelings or beliefs.

Is it possible that this could happen? Yes, if one party could persuade the majority of voters that it has all (or most) of the solutions to their problems and that it (the party) will benefit them the most.

OK, if you believe it is possible, how could it be engineered or masterminded?

The following are a few possibilities:

1. Change the attitude of existing voters by convincing them that the government can solve their problems.

2. Change the number and composition of voters to be more favorable to your party.

3. Packing the Supreme Court with activist judges.

4. Add more progressive States.

5. Eliminating the Electoral College.

Item #1 could be accomplished by becoming more socialistic and left-leaning. This is done by enslaving the population by providing more programs and benefits that they perceive to better their standard of living. A key part of this effort would be to divide the electorate by race, income, gender, and preference. Then promise each group some individualized goodies. Divide then conquer!  If the folks can be made to feel that the party is providing good things for them, even as they become more and more enslaved to the government (party), they will remain loyal, for example:

    √ Divide and conquer strategy used by Obama in the last two elections.

    √ War on poverty under Johnson’s Great Society. See this article -https://clashdaily.com/2014/03/allen-west-lbj-ill-nggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/

    √ War on the Second Amendment. You are probably well aware of the left’s position on gun control even though their proposals would do nothing to stop most gun crimes due to the fact that criminals do not follow current laws and are unlikely to obey new ones. In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled at length on a quotation attributed to Hitler ( “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”), writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

    √ Government takeover of health care (Obama Care). Someone once said, “control health care and you control the people”. Oh, it was Saul Alinsky. He was the Chicago-born community organizer whose life and work greatly influenced President Obama. He authored the books “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals” to provide "counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change."

There are actually are 8 levels of control (widely attributed to Mr. Alinsky) that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. See the image at the beginning of this article for them all-they describe what is happening to the United States right now.

Over time, #2 could be accomplished by allowing more immigrants from socialistic countries (who have not been exposed to democratic principles) and immigrants who are, generally, less educated than the existing population. Keep in mind that these immigrants teach their children what they have been taught so their children will continue along the line of thinking taught them by their parents.

This was set in motion by The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The below article describes the act and its history: http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

I only recently became aware of the 1965 law while searching for the answer to a question I had - what is the basis of the widely held belief that we should allow just about anyone, regardless of qualification, to immigrate to the U.S.A?

If you think there is not a left-wing progressive conspiracy to change the composition of the population (and ultimately the voters) to be more favorable to the Democratic Party think about this:

√  Between 1960 and 2010 the number of foreign-born residents of the Country increased by approximately 30,000,000 people and represented 13% of the population.

√  The average growth rate of foreign-born residents for the five decades between 1960 and 2010 (after the ACT) was 34%; the average Growth for the five previous decades (1920 -1960) was -6%).

√  Historically legal immigration amounted to approximately 200,000 per year but since the Act was passed it has averaged over 1 million people per year.

√ Most new immigrants lean toward the democratic party and are less educated than the general population.

The process can be accelerated by encouraging illegal immigration and then granting them amnesty.

            Item #3, #4, and #5 can be accomplished once Item #1 and #2 get far enough along such that there is effectively no opposing party.

Wake up America! This is already happening. The Democrats anointed Hillary; there were no opponents because it was her turn. (See related article here.) All they now need is the electorate. Democratic voters are exploding due to executive orders and out of control immigration so it is just a matter of time.

And That’s that!

Baltimore and the Failure of Progressives

Baltimore and the Failure of Progressism

By Rick Adamson

7.7.15

© 2015 Rick Adamson

Baltimore is a city of 600,000, 63 percent of which at African American. In 1970 the population was closer to 900,000. So, for one reason or another 1/3 of its population has moved on to other places.

Crime has long been a problem and it has been labeled “body bag city” by some. It ranks in the top 3 most violent cities in the country.

Unlike Ferguson, Mo., the government reflects the makeup of the population in terms of race; the Mayor is African American as is the police chief and local prosecutor. City council is mostly African American.

Democratic progressives have held the Mayor’s office since 1967 and have been evenly divided between whites and African Americans.  The current Mayor and her predecessor are African American women.

So, let’s eliminate the white folks as being the problem.

24% of the population lives below poverty level vs. 14.5% for the Country as a whole. Per capita income is about $24,750 for Baltimore whereas it is $51,971 for Maryland and $42,693 for the US. There are a significant number of folks receiving public assistance.

Baltimore has long been recognized as a problem community and, as a result, much effort and money has been sent its way in order to help improve living conditions. For example, $1.8 Billion from the 2009 stimulus program was allocated to Baltimore.

Children under perform in schools despite elaborate funding. Baltimore spends $17,329 per student per year compare to $14,000 for Maryland  and $11,000 for the Country. FedGov contributes 20% of the $17,329 each year compared to 12% for the Country as a whole.

What does all this extra spending produce? In 2013, according to the Department of Education, only 16 percent of the eighth graders in the Baltimore City Public Schools scored at or above grade-level proficient in the NAEP reading test. That same year, only 13 percent of the eighth graders in the Baltimore City Public Schools scored at or above grade-level proficient in math.

Unemployment  is 8.2% in Baltimore, 5.3% in Maryland and 5.4% in the Country as a whole.

Thirty-eight people have been killed in the body bag city so far this month (May 2015), the deadliest in 15 years for a city still recovering from the protests surrounding the death of Freddie Gray. The increase comes as arrests in May are down 56% compared with last year. Shootings over Memorial Day Weekend amounted to 28.

The Obama administration announced that more gun laws will somehow reduce these numbers; while due to the very strict current gun laws in Maryland only criminals have guns - illegal guns (correction, illegally processed guns as most guns in and of themselves are not illegal).

By any measure Baltimore is a failure. So what’s the problem? There seems to be lots of money. Could it be that the Democratic/progressive/socialistic approach isn’t working? They have been in charge for 48 years and see what a mess they have made?

I would like to see a five year plan developed by the local politico’s showing what they plan to do to turn the city around. One which includes more than the standard single entry - more money - from you and me. I submit that they cannot come up with one because it would involve aggressive police action, vouchers for better schools and cultural intervention (training in how not to be poor, and the importance of personal responsibility and character). These types of activities cost votes when people believe the status quo is better than having to put forth effort to make positive changes.

I predict that when we look at Baltimore in 5 years it will look pretty much the same because the progressives have no real interest in improving the lives of the folks. They like the poverty and dependency upon the State – it makes the folks easier to control. However, FedGov will probably be providing the policing and even more for money for schools because as more people move out there will less and less local tax revenue to pay the bills. It is possible that it could turn into a de- facto Federal city – like Washington, D.C. What an improvement that would be! LOL

They need to wake up! There has got to be a better way. The progressive approach has not worked.

For more perspective check out these articles from TheWeek magazine

http://theweek.com/articles/553789/broken-promise  and

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13nOsa-eKZR501uT-5yuJiiyXCWP74GKxKEN-AQ5ilcI/edit?usp=sharing

And That's that!

Middle East and the Arab Spring

Middle East and the Arab Spring

© 2015 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 2.17.15

History

The history of the Middle East dates back to ancient times, and the region has generally been a major center of world affairs. Several major religions have their origins in the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Muslim religion).

Islam is the major religion of the region; however, Christians, Jews and many others are well represented. Only about 20 percent of the world’s Islamists (Muslins) live in the Middle East, most live elsewhere.

The modern Arab Countries of the Middle East were created upon the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and have been dominated by authoritarian or religious regimes ever since. See partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. Iran and that east of it were part of the Persian Empire.

Like Christianity, there are many versions of Islam. In the Middle East the most prominent denominations are Shi’a (20%) and Sunni (80%). These groups occupy every Middle Eastern country with Sunni being the majority in all but Iran, Bahrain and by some estimates Iraq.

These denominations were heavily influenced by the Persian and Ottoman Empires. The Arab countries were from the Ottoman Empire and tend to be Sunni; Iran was Persian and is principally Shi’a.

Sunni and Shi’a do not like each other and have been fighting, in one form or another, since the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. They live in segregated villages or tribes (countryside) and communities (cities). They discriminate and persecute one another at every turn. They do not talk, socialize or do business with each other.

While most people in the region just want to live in peace there are radical groups within each denomination that are violent and tend to push back against their governments due to discrimination, among other reasons. All these militants/ jihad’s have ever known is war. They fight with their neighboring villages and occasionally band together to fight the West and, of course, Jews. It has been said that the status of a tribal leader is determined by the status of his enemy.

For example: Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The government was Shi’a and they persecuted and discriminated against the majority (Sunni) which welcomed al-Qaida (Sunni) in order to relieve them from persecution.  And after him came Hasan al-Maliki, also Shi’a, and he persecuted and discriminated against the majority (Sunni) who then welcomed the relief that ISIS (formally al-Qaida) promised.

(By the way, there were no substantial al-Qaida forces (ISIS had not been born) in Iraq when our troops left in 2012. Over a short 2 year period Maliki got in bed with Iran and decimated the Iraqi military (which we spent billions of dollars to build).  He then proceeded to persecute the majority (Sunni) population to the point that they welcomed the relief that ISIS (Sunni) promised. A residual force of 20,000 to 30,000 US troops would have stopped that in its tracks.

Who made the decision to withdraw? Obama and Clinton!

O’Reilly explains what really happened: Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly, March 18, 2015

ISIS started in Syria as push back against a Shi’a government which persecuted and discriminated against the majority (Sunni).

This is exactly what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and is ongoing in Syria. Only the names of the militants change; the reasons remain the same. These uprisings (labeled the Arab Spring) have led to their rulers being forced from power with the exception of Syria which continues.

The Arab Spring has also produced major protests in Algeria, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan; and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, and Western Sahara.

In some cases the scenarios have been reversed in that there was a Sunni or other government which was opposed by Shi’a militants such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi in Yemen.

Allegedly, Iran (Shi’a) supplies funds and other support to these Shi’a militants as well as to the Shi’a governments of Iraq and Syria, among others. This along with Iran’s pursuit of an atomic bomb is what scares the pants off of the other nations in the region.

With the potential of militant uprisings constantly percolating beneath the surface there is no wonder these countries have been dominated by authoritarian governments. Anyone who has studied the region understands this. This is how governments were able to keep the lid on things and avoid bloodshed while allowing most people to live in relative peace.

The US and others have a perfect right and obligation to encourage the regimes to improve in the area of human rights and to move toward democracy. However, they have no right to naively encourage radical regime change without thinking through to what the result might be.  The question of what next must be contemplated before a dictator is toppled e.g., Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. See what a mess the region is in now.

Arab Spring

It may be a coincidence but this whole region has been coming apart for the past 6 years which happens to overlap the tenure of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

One has to wonder if Obama’s 2009 speech in Egypt had anything to do with the current situation. Obama told his Egyptian audience he was seeking a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Mutual interests? LOL

In that speech he also said "I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose." (As an aside, this is a novel concept that we should try in the good'ole USA.)

I am sure the powers that be simply wanted to free the people of the Arab countries, which is admirable; however, they should have anticipated that, given the opportunity, the militants/jihad’s would overpower the ordinary folks and anarchy would result. Moreover, it is totally unrealistic to expect countries with no experience with democracy to transition to a form of government that has taken us over 200 years to develop. It can’t be done!

See related article: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2012/06/24/obama-s-arab-spring-was-not-based-on-reality/

Eighteen months later, the uprisings of the Arab spring began. The first was a peaceful revolution in Tunisia, then carnage in Syria. Then after the riots in Egypt Obama called for Mubarak to step down "now", (upending three decades of American relations with its most stalwart ally in the Arab world.)

Obama "led from behind," providing air power and intelligence but leaving it to NATO’s European powers and their Arab allies to help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This one was Hillary’s baby. She was determined to get rid of Gaddafi despite assurances that he was willing to embrace change.  In the brutal aftermath – jihad’s killed the US ambassador in Benghazi – painfully underlining the dangers of unleashing militants who invariably over power the good folks. Please note that Libya was Hillary’s because she, more than anyone, insisted that Gaddafi go.

What about Obama’s May 2011 speech where he called for the leader of Syria to embrace democracy or move aside, though without specifically demanding his ouster. Obama said the "shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region." The president noted that two leaders had stepped down - referring to Egypt and Tunisia - and said that "more may follow." All the while Obama refused to arm the opposition or impose a no-fly zone. Obama later said that a line in the sand would be if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against it’s people, it did and Obama choked.

Obama’s hope was that engagement, combined with the responsibility of exercising power, would encourage Islamist-led governments toward pragmatism. It didn’t.

As usual Obama’s remarks were eloquent; however, they were delivered to the wrong audience. He exhibited immature irrational behavior (attributable to his lack of experience and arrogance) by thinking that he could promote rebellions by legitimate freedom fighters without unleashing the militant/jihad’s.  Another way to describe his actions is doing “Stupid Stuff”.

Finally, at a time when events in the Middle East required our utmost attention, Obama unveiled his 2012 "Pivot to East Asia" regional strategy. This simply meant that more attention would be paid and more resources would be used in the South China Sea areas and less in the Middle East.

In summary, Obama’s actions were akin to starting a fire next door to a fire station and dispatching the firefighters to attend to a blaze across town!

Arab Winter

Obama has defended his record of supporting democratization despite chaos and crises. He told 60 Minutes "It was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance."

The Brooks Institute has reported that Obama has alienated both regimes and their opponents. "Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite."

So to look back now to the uplifting rhetoric of June 2009 is to reflect on the gap between ambition and reality; of idealism and inexperience and of a lack of the simplest strategic thinking like - what next?

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a supporter of Barack Obama’s election in 2012, is offering stinging criticism of the president’s Middle East policy, suggesting it led to the ISIS crisis and broad instability in the region. He said “It was big mistake to jump on the Arab Spring enthusiastically, without realizing it was soon going to turn into an ‘Arab Winter’.”

In my opinion, Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton violated their “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” strategy and they own the mess we now have (and that they encouraged) in the Middle East.

Iran

Iran (Persia) is a country with a very long history. It dates back to around 3,000 BC. Iran was once a world power, the first world empire, if fact. Its people are generally smart and well educated.  They are superb negotiators (due to a long history of mercantilism) and very patient.

According to the CIA World Factbook, around 90–95% of Iranians associate themselves with the Shi'a branch (denomination) of Islam.

Iran (Shi’a) supplies funds and other support to Shi’a lead governments and Shi’a militants all over the region (and maybe the world). These include the governments of Iraq and Syria, among others, and militants like Hamas (Gaza), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthis (Yemen), among others. This along with Iran’s pursuit of an atomic bomb is what scares the pants off of the other nations in the region.

The US and others are currently in heated negotiations with Iran over it’s nuclear program. Ask yourself why Iran would want a nuclear bomb. The answer is not immediately obvious because they face no real threat from the US, Israel or any other major power.

But, consider this, most Muslims of the world follow the Sunni denomination of Islam. Practically all of the Middle Eastern countries have a Sunni majority population. The Sunnis and Shi’as have been at war for thousands of years. They hate each other.  

So, I think, the answer is that they fear for their survival because other Muslims in the region despise them. ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Sunni.  Iran (Shi’a) is on their hit list.

In order to survive, they want to dominate the region and nukes provide them that power.

So, we basically have an Arab-Persian conflict persisting as it has for thousands of years but which has been enhanced by technology and meddling by the USA. Lets hope that they do not all get nukes with which they could destroy each other and maybe the world.

And That’s that!

Obamacare Subsidies

Obamacare Subsidies

By Rick Adamson

6.2.15

© 2015 Rick Adamson  

The Supreme Court is about to rule on whether subsidies (where the Feds pay part of the monthly premium) are available to residents of States which do not have an insurance exchange. Most people who have jobs are covered by their employer’s health insurance plan and this issue will have no effect upon them. In fact, they probably find the subject extremely boring. This issue will have no effect of folks receiving Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, as expanded by Obamacare. However, there are many millions of folks who are not so covered and, as required by law (Obamacare), must arrange for health insurance in other ways.

The meaning of these 6 words are at the heart of a case the Supreme Court is currently hearing. The words relate to those who are eligible for subsidies (subject to income limitations) and they are: “an exchange established by the state.”

If the Court decides against the Administration, subsidies will not be allowed for otherwise qualified persons in the 34 States that did not set up exchanges which would effectively kill ObamaCare. Some folks say these States essentially said to FedGov “no thanks, we do not want your subsidies and we will not set up an insurance exchange.”

Others (including the now famous Dr.Gruber) say these specific words were used in order to coerce the States into participation for fear they would miss out on Federal subsidies for their citizens.

If this happens the law will be promptly amended because the subsidies cannot be taken away. Here is why:

Up to 6.5 million people are receiving subsidies and they will not be happy to lose them. But who are these people? Are they all poor?

 √ Under Obamacare Uncle Sam pays a portion (varies depending on income) of the monthly insurance premium as follows (2015):

Individuals with income between $11,670 and $46,680.

Families of 4 with income between $23,850 and $95,400.

In situations where income is lower than the lowest figure in the range Medicaid provides coverage.

So, no, not all of the people affected are poor. In fact, there are some who are doing quite well and also receiving subsidies. With the median American family income running around $50,000 per year one might argue that subsidies are available for, on average, just about everyone who must purchase their own health insurance.

Just think what the attitude will be toward the Republican controlled Congress if the law is not modified so that the subsidies are continued. Sounds like more of what I call the left wing (progressive) conspiracy at work; tether as many folks as possible to the government and guarantee their support.

And That’s that!

War on Young Black Men

Race in America

By Rick Adamson

8.24.14

© 2014 Rick Adamson  

The sad state of racial affairs is that there is a war on young black men in this Country. The rate of imprisonment for young black men is higher than average. In many parts of society there is fear of young black men which results in discrimination. Many in the black community feel victimized by society and do not trust the authorities. These are the facts.

Here are a few more facts. The war on young black men is perpetuated by other young black men. Homicide is the No. 1 cause of death for black males 15-34, and 91 percent of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. The fear that many people feel, which results in suspicion and discrimination, is due to the criminal activity of young black men. More young black men are stopped by police because of the criminal activity of young black men. It is not a personal thing when the police stop a black person, it is a percentage thing. The odds are, because of the criminal activity of young black men, the person the police are after is in that vehicle. It is not a fair thing but the odds support the activity.

The incarceration rates of young black men are higher than average because of the criminal activity of young black men. Note that black men commit nearly half of all murders in this country, which is astounding when you take into consideration the fact that they only make up 12-13 per cent of the population. Yes, some are being shot by police but more whites are shot and killed than Blacks.  On a percentage basis, more black men are involved in shootings with the police, but it that not expected when you take into consideration the role that the black population plays in crime?

I feel sorry for the innocents who encounter discrimination. However, they are associated with a group that commits a disproportionate proportion of crimes in this country and, through no fault of their own, are caught up in the vicious cycle.

In order to correct this problem we must reduce the criminal activity of young black men. If this could be accomplished, the feeling of being unfairly imprisoned, discriminated against and victimized would be greatly reduced.

Increased positive participation in community affairs and voting would increase the influence of the community leaders and lessen the feeling of victimization. Many folks who do not trust their elected and appointed officials do not bother to vote at election time. Does anyone really believe that these officials can be trusted to care for the needs of the Citizens without those needs being made known through an election? Effort is required because the problem will not fix itself. Does anyone think the rest of society will feel real empathy for these communities until its members stand up and participate?

In 1961, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation "Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards."  He also said "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves." (1)

Any candid debate on race and criminality in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. African-Americans constitute about 13% of the U.S. population, yet between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. (2 )

I have heard it said that the high arrest rate of black men is due to discrimination and not crime rates. Hog wash. That is just more of the victim mentality coming through. It is due to the criminal activity of young black men and there have been studies that prove it.

Not much has changed between 1961 and now with respect to violence in the black community. This should give the race baiters and community organizers something to work on. Stop preaching victimization and the same old theories that have not worked. Start teaching people how to improve their lot in life rather than being dependents of the State. Teach personal responsibility and self reliance. Listen to Dr. Ben Carson, Jason Riley and Bill Cosby. Emphasize the importance of education and getting involved in political issues within the community.

Stop the violence and stop the discrimination.

See the post entitled "Ferguson".

Notes (1) and (2): http://online.wsj.com/…/SB100014241278873233945045786081825…

And That’s that!

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

© 2015 Rick Adamson  

By Rick Adamson

Did you know that birthright citizenship for children of illegal residents has never been tested in court?

Section one of the 14th Amendment states:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The amendment was adopted in 1868.

The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. Further, it was meant to constitutionalize the Civil Rights act of 1866 and nullify the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States.

In 1865, Congress passed what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteeing citizenship without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The bill also guaranteed equal benefits and access to the law, a direct assault on the Black Codes passed by many post-war states. The  Black Codes attempted to return ex-slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.

The constitution, theretofore, contained no definition of citizen and it was believed that in order to be a US citizen a person had to first be a citizen of a State. State laws varied and were sometimes unclear about who could be a citizen.  The 14th Amendment eliminated that issue by stating that a person’s citizenship would be determined by his or her relationship to the U.S. and not to that of a State. And, further, that States were prohibited from making certain laws that might infringe upon a citizen’s rights.

The clause's meaning with regard to a child of legal immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  The Supreme Court held that under the 14th Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.  

Note that the man’s parents were legal permanent residents of the U.S.A.

Some scholars argue that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment should not apply to the children of unauthorized aliens because the problem of unauthorized aliens did not exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

They argue, further, that unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government (the Supreme Court has concluded that this phrase referred to ‘being required to obey U.S. law’) due to the fact that they are here illegally and that, therefore, their offspring cannot be citizens simply by being born on US soil. See related article:

"Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies"

Congress during the 21st century has discussed revising the clause to more clearly indicate that it does not apply to children born of unauthorized immigrants and to reduce the practice of "birth tourism", in which a pregnant foreign national gives birth in the United States for purposes of the child's citizenship.

The issue of birth right citizenship for children of parents who are not citizens or permanent legal residents has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.  For more back ground see this article: "Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment"

Since the issue concerning illegal immigration had not surfaced (the term illegal alien had not even been invented) it seems very unlikely that the writers of the Amendment had any intention, other than to correct the injustice being perpetrated against African Americans, of conferring citizenship upon persons (or their offspring) passing through (traveling) or residing upon our territory unlawfully.

I mean, really, it appears to be entirely without logic to entice people to break our laws by telling them that if they can arrange to have a child on US soil, through whatever means, the child will be a US citizen and have all of the rights and privileges of citizenship.

Congress needs to MAN UP and correct this misconception by defining the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or by some other means.

And That’s that!