Who’s side is the homeland security secretary on?

US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Photo by the Center for American Progress

So… the US Constitution isn’t a “living document” that must breath with the times?

That’s what Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is intimating, at least in her comments on the 14th Amendment.

“Any talk about amending the constitution is just wrong,” Napolitano said. Her comment was reported on the network news this evening in a story about the call to address the birthright citizenship issue as it is said to relate to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Funny how the Constitution somehow means things when it fits the twisted logic of the loons on the left. I wonder if Napolitano has the same thoughts as related to the First and Second amendments and the absolute language contained in those amendments?

The part of the 14th Amendment that seems to be causing the most political turbulence is Section 1, which simply 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.”

It’s this section of the constitution that has not only allowed, but has invited immigrants to sneak across the sovereign borders of the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child here, who then, by definition of the language in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, automatically becomes a US citizen.

But wait? Was that the intent of the 14th Amendment when it was signed in 1866 and ratified two years later? Or was it merely to grant citizenship to slaves during the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War?

The whole idea behind the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with people coming to America to simply have babies and thus force the government to grant them citizenship. It was all about granting freed slaves who were here at the time the rights afforded under the US Constitution. Since the 13th Amendment had legally abolished slavery in America in 1865, three years after President Lincoln freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation, Congress also figured it was right to recognize that freed slaves had the same rights under the Constitution as any other US citizen.

So why are we arguing this point today? Because, it seems, that people have been allowed to distort its intent and take advantage of policies that allow citizens of foreign countries to come here, have a child, and have that child automatically become a US citizen by the mere fact that he or she was born here, despite the citizenship of his or her parents.

Is this always the case? What about the foreign tourist who’s here on vacation and goes into labor while in the United States and delivers a baby. Is that baby also automatically a US citizen, or is she a citizen of the nation from which her mother comes? It seems we don’t hear reports of the German or the Canadian or the Australian “anchor babies.” We only hear reports of the Mexican anchor babies — children born here to Mexican mothers who are here illegally and arguably only here to have the baby (thanks also to our liberal welfare policies) — who then become a burden on our public systems as they then must be educated in public schools at public expense. This typically happens while mom does not contribute to the American system by becoming a citizen, becoming gainfully employed, and thus a taxpayer.

What about the reverse? What happens in Mexico when nationals from other countries have their babies there? Do they automatically become citizens of Mexico? Is the Mexican government obligated to provide welfare benefits to them from cradle to grave, or is this merely a US problem because of our Constitution and the liberal social policies that have been enacted throughout the years?

Maybe it’s not a problem in Mexico because if you’re caught sneaking into that country illegally they simply kill you.