Birthright Citizenship – The Claremont Institute – Ed Erler

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP – THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE – ED ERLER

 The Republican party should NOT reach out to Hispanic voters
 
Edward J. Erler Edward J. Erler is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute and Professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernardino. He is the author of The American Polity (Crane Russak, 1993), and articles on the fourteenth amendment, affirmative action, the death penalty and other topics. From 1983-84, Dr. Erler served as director of bicentennial programs at the National Endowment for the Humanities, and serves currently as a member of the California Civil Rights Commission. – See more at:
 
Machine Generated Transcript, expect errors, listen to the podcast you will be glad you did!
0:00
there’s a lot of talk today about the the Republican party needs to reach out
0:04
to the Hispanic vote
0:05
and I think that that is really not a very good idea what the Republican party
0:10
needs to do
0:11
is to reach out to the middle class
0:22
of
0:31
add the the court went wrong
0:33
in Plessy v Ferguson 1896
0:36
and then two years later as
0:39
a a as you’ve argued the court when
0:43
wrong again on this question a birthright citizenship this was in this
0:47
the one Kim arc case is there
0:51
is that coincidence or is there some connection between the the way the core
0:55
reasoned in those two cases well it
0:58
very difficult to say I’ve never really a look for a connection between the two
1:03
cases
1:03
up but I think there’s no doubt that the plessy versus
1:07
ferguson case was wrong as a matter of constitutional law
1:10
when it was decided I don’t think it’s possible to say that
1:15
it was right for the times and then
1:19
although some people’s the say that I think about the usual way aid to
1:22
to say that it was right for the times and then the
1:26
constitutional jurisprudence a evolved after that
1:29
it was wrong at the time it was the site and I think that Justice Harlan and the
1:33
set was right
1:34
I’ll justice harlan did not say that society was color blind that would have
1:39
been
1:39
a silly thing to say because it was obvious that society was not colorblind
1:43
but the constitution was in fact color-blind and
1:47
and he said if we stick to our principles that is to say that the law
1:51
the Constitution cannot take into account racial classifications I think
1:55
that
1:55
we would have been much better off a had that
1:59
up opinion prevailed and I think we would have been much better off said
2:03
had the the court in 1k mark a
2:07
stuck to the Constitution as well there’s no
2:10
a possible reason her the
2:14
are possible argument that I can think of that anybody in 1898 could have said
2:19
that the 14th amendment adopted the
2:23
the British common law birthright citizenship
2:26
anybody who’s read the Declaration of Independence and
2:29
it says that we have dissolved are
2:32
allegiance to the came over %uh England
2:35
me that is a great violation above the common law right there
2:39
it’s impossible to dissolve your allegiance to the King
2:42
a great britain that’s revolutionary a doctor and
2:47
to say the least and in so how do you account for
2:50
the the Declaration of Independence a and
2:53
I I think the court says simply wasn’t thinking
2:57
in that regard right it would mean of course that
3:00
that you could leave scot-free
3:04
even under the birthright citizenship expatriation
3:08
or under the expatriation standard right because if you
3:11
Odets if you have been convicted of a crime right
3:14
and you can’t just leave whenever you want to leave whenever it’s convenient
3:19
have core you to leave and even under the declaration independence of course
3:23
not know
3:23
what theory yep want you consent the you you consider to be governed you you
3:28
course you acquire obligations
3:30
and what you’ve acquired the obligations year you have to fulfil the obligations
3:34
and if you want to leave
3:35
or to expatriate yourself to escape obligations of course we have
3:40
the no obligation ourselves to let you go a
3:44
but want to fulfill your obligations and you want to leave you if you think you
3:48
can
3:48
do better in some other country in the other country will
3:51
except you then we have the obligation to let you go
3:55
a.m. with all your property and so that their courses
3:58
is a key provides that the other country has to admit you of course
4:02
it was it has the right to admit you are not admit you
4:06
and so that brings us something like the current situation where
4:09
there are many millions are
4:12
illegal aliens in the United States or undocumented democrats is Jay Leno likes
4:17
to call them
4:18
have at that I hadn’t heard a thud
4:22
and the they’re here and regardless of whether there’s an amnesty or what
4:27
happens to them
4:28
their children every generation are American citizens
4:32
and that’s the anomaly the policy that public policy anomaly that your
4:38
putting your finger on and that you’re interested in but now
4:41
as a practical matter what would you recommend that
4:45
we do about it i mean is since we’re debating amnesty ng
4:50
or otherwise legalizing people who are here illegally
4:55
now we’re talking about people who are here legally at least undercurrent
4:59
law with it is there any practical banished to be
5:02
to be had from trying to reverse
5:06
birthright citizenship in the way that you have
5:09
suggested well I think that there would be practical advantages are
5:13
I’ll I must say a that I’m not against immigration I think we have plenty a
5:18
room for /url
5:19
a lot of people to come to the country but I think that
5:22
we ought to be the ones selecting the people to come to the country the other
5:26
not to be self-selected
5:27
as illegal immigrants are self-selected coming to the country
5:31
and the and then demanding citizenship
5:35
a those provoke some very
5:38
profound questions about house Auburn are we as a nation if we can determine
5:43
a who come to the country we can the
5:47
treat citizens differently than than non-citizens and
5:51
and so on and so forth so a I think the problem is
5:55
illegal immigration know a lot of people say we we depend upon the illegal
5:58
immigrants
5:59
that they do the work that Americans a won’t do I’m not so sure that that’s
6:03
true
6:04
given the our economic a I’ll
6:08
situation today a but a
6:11
hi I think it’s a bad idea to have the illegal immigration
6:14
there’s always gonna be demands for amnesty is always going to be demands
6:18
for
6:19
for citizenship if we have no control
6:22
them of course we were really quite literally no longer a sovereign nation
6:27
we ought to have control over our borders we ought to be able to determine
6:30
who will allow in what
6:32
and the people we’ll to allow ought to be those who can contribute
6:36
a most to our prosperity and
6:40
should serve the interests of the United States a
6:44
and that ought to be the basis of our
6:48
public policy let me ask you about the other side ugly
6:51
problem I how how well
6:55
are we succeeding at assimilating
6:58
immigrants legal or illegal
7:02
to the United States I mean I teddy roosevelt
7:05
hundred years ago talk about americanization yeah as
7:09
as the as the fate of the immigrants and
7:12
and the fate to be desired by immigrants and on immigrants alike
7:16
can we still talk about that well I think progressives of all stripes are
7:21
saying that they all the ideal the melting pot is a
7:24
disguise for racism that we ought not to
7:27
try to ask people to assimilate the assimilation is a
7:32
well
7:34
you know a kind of a Gemini that really is a
7:38
well as they call it the us
7:42
Sourav you know the wanted to stay but they’re the cultural
7:47
diversity that people bring with them and we ought to celebrate a cultural
7:51
diversity we ought not to make people
7:53
speak the same language that we do word to hear to
7:56
cultural traditions that are unit is what is a tough bargain
7:59
I’m it is a very tight isn’t easy not to it isn’t easy to relate
8:03
yeah a but of course the we have to have
8:07
the serve kinda agreement that we agree %uh that we all
8:12
share the same principles do know when Abraham Lincoln in one of his famous
8:17
speeches said a talked about the electric cord that
8:21
draws everybody back to the principles of the Declaration of Independence
8:24
we are not all the same bloody said but the
8:28
that all Declaration of Independence gives us something in common because we
8:32
share those principles
8:33
and that’s what makes us one people a
8:36
but we’ve lost that a long time ago hope a
8:40
and if we can’t revive those sentiments a
8:44
but everything that the we experience today I mean everything in the
8:47
University everything
8:49
you know militates against that I’m not sure that we can recover their old idea
8:53
because we are told over and over again that there is a kind of
8:56
genocide her behind the
9:00
the melting pot there’s a kind of Jennifer
9:04
hidden genocide behind trying to make people
9:07
assimilate two things that are foreign to them and we ought not to make them
9:11
give those things up but we should celebrate those things do you think
9:15
multiculturalism is a coherent concept what’s the
9:20
not to my mind is like a coherent I mean the we’ve seen places in the world that
9:24
have celebrated multiculturalism and they’ve degenerated into a
9:28
a a kind of the anarchy inns in some respects
9:32
a and the you know look I think that constitutional government is only
9:37
a been successful in the nation state
9:40
I know I i’m always a hearkening back to
9:44
one over president Georgia W Bush’s
9:47
famous statements about immigration we ought to
9:51
show compassion to our neighbors to the south or he said famously on several
9:56
occasions that
9:57
family values don’t stop at the border and I think that that’s true I mean we
10:01
we always have compassion for people who who want to
10:05
provide the a better life for themselves and for their families
10:09
and family values i presumably are universal values it all stopped at the
10:14
border
10:15
abut that statement above
10:19
president bush’s would is more is suitable for
10:23
the world homogeneous state and we’re in which citizenship
10:27
is not really a factor a but the world homogeneous state is not going to be a
10:32
constitutional government
10:33
in which says citizens have unique privileges and immunities
10:37
a and unique liberties a
10:40
and I think that the system %uh nation-states as long as it is the
10:43
preservative constitutional government
10:45
which I am sure that it is is going to require citizenship
10:50
in unique privileges and immunities that
10:53
that belonged to citizenship
10:57
no I think that illegal immigration are
11:00
you know undermines in in and and the bases
11:04
that idea citizenship but look we have
11:07
interests in the United States that depend upon illegal immigration I
11:13
I’m I’ve said this many many times there are only two groups of people
11:16
in the United States her who want to continue illegal immigration and that’s
11:21
the republicans and the democrats
11:23
I
11:25
the republicans the mainly because they want cheap an exploitable labor
11:29
and the democrats because they want future voters
11:32
I in the there’s no real incentive for her to
11:37
26 to stop or to control the border
11:41
a democrats were always going to hell
11:44
a any interest in future voters I in the
11:48
republicans a order in the democrats too I don’t mean to say this is exclusively
11:52
republican
11:53
always won a steady supply a cheaper exploitable labor
11:57
and so there there’s little incentive I can remember I I was working in
12:02
washington in 1986
12:04
and had a very very minor role in consulting on the
12:07
immigration into and control active 1986
12:11
in people were so confident this will be the final final
12:15
thing that we’re going to do this will solve the immigration problem
12:18
Anna and I can remember same the you people are naive
12:23
if you believe that there is going to be border control there will be no border
12:27
control because nobody is interested
12:29
border control and that was the truth Stanley Kurtz
12:33
said the other day that what we have in the united states today
12:37
is a acculturation but not assimilation
12:40
that is young people iron
12:44
who are illegal or even older people who are
12:48
illegal E immigrants in the United States
12:51
at gradually do adjust to american culture
12:56
when they begin to watch American television and they listened to
12:59
American radio in and so forth and the course they use the internet but
13:04
they don’t patriotically
13:07
assimilate now what can be done about that have you given a pretty
13:11
grim indictment yes up higher education and every other level of education lol
13:15
nothing that can be done to
13:17
to well its bring back some idea patriotic
13:20
why I think so well you know we’re University people so we
13:25
we know what it’s like in the University there’s no a
13:28
you know attempted a culture is Asian but there’s an attempt to keep the group
13:32
separate
13:32
a and as as much as possible
13:36
racial pride ethnic pride all %uh the rest in this business
13:39
a and a and I don’t think there’s no future is a
13:44
for the country in and that kind of talk well
13:47
there’s a lot of talk today about the the Republican party needs to reach out
13:51
to the Hispanic vote
13:52
and I think that that is really not a very good idea what the Republican party
13:58
needs to do
13:58
is to reach out to the middle class and the
14:02
the progressives have waged open warfare against the middle class for a number of
14:06
years
14:07
and this is a very evident in the Obama administration this is what the
14:12
administrative state
14:13
the welfare state he’s to do is to destroy the middle class make
14:17
more and more people clients at the welfare state to
14:20
expand the administrative state to to increase its region so on and so forth
14:25
no
14:26
a it one time I think that the
14:30
the the fastest-growing as we say the fastest growing up
14:35
demographic in the country was the middle class and that was multi-ethnic
14:40
and multi-religious
14:40
make multi-racial and the
14:43
and a concentration on the middle class was a course the the future for
14:48
the Republican Party and there’s word out the
14:52
be again and that’s the greatest method of cultural nation I say move people
14:56
into the middle class
14:57
give them opportunities to get into the middle class
15:00
not appeal to the neck and send their children to college yeah oh well
15:03
there’s a problem a send them the columns in Lacan’s
15:07
start the multi-ethnic the push all over again
15:11
a now you’re being a little bit personal I
15:15
her but I think this idea of a you know keeping the
15:19
the race is separate
15:21
you know %uh the administrative state is good at that
15:24
counting by race counting by race in we had the Immigration Act 1965
15:30
a his partner vo 103 great AXA
15:33
over the great society a
15:36
we had the a Civil Rights Act of 1964 which
15:40
I happen to believe was a perfect expression about the
15:43
framers the 14th amendment may met by equal protection of the laws
15:47
nobody could be made to to bear the burden over racial classification and
15:52
hiring and firing promotion and so on agreement you wouldn’t go back to the
15:56
pre 1965
15:57
immigration law necessary of course national origins quoted no of course not
16:02
but the and loves saying about the 64 act
16:06
the perfectly a
16:09
no individual can be made to bear the burden over racial class
16:13
but that Lois trans my reply into a law that required racial classifications
16:18
in and so on and so forth the voting rights act of 1965 another piece of
16:23
great society legislation perfectly good on its face
16:26
no discrimination in voting in running for office no racial classifications
16:30
became the tool love racial classifications we need racial
16:35
proportionality in voting
16:36
and in and voting results and so on well the 65 Immigration Act
16:41
was a kind of affirmative action program to the
16:45
because we want to make up for racial policies that
16:48
drove previous immigration policies
16:51
but I think that the 65 back to was a little bit more insidious we want to
16:56
bring in people
16:57
from parts of the world who are most unlike us
17:01
and who are going to find it much more difficult to assimilate into
17:05
American Way of life than people who came here previously
17:09
and sooner or later a the middle class will be overwhelmed by these people who
17:14
are going to need the ministrations the
17:16
the administrative state and I think that this was
17:20
a part of people who could really see
17:25
a the be the
17:29
and 10 at the real and tell them the sack a
17:32
but it very said it had a very a immigration policy
17:36
your pitch would be for skills-based
17:39
admissions I think that we need skill-based a admissions peep
17:42
the bring in people who a
17:46
are a we don’t need the welfare state
17:50
a who perhaps even a
17:53
demonstrated that they speak English or a least are learning English
17:57
who could move into skilled jobs who are
18:01
poised to move into the middle class and move up the economic ladder
18:05
and who are not going to depend upon the welfare state a
18:09
expand the middle class a make the middle-class a multi-ethnic and
18:13
multi-racial middle-class
18:15
and that’s the key to our future

Give a listen to my Podcast! You will be glad you did.

Leave a Reply