MALDEF's "Truth in Immigration" misleads about 14th Amendment quote (Lamar Smith)

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) has at least an indirect link to the Mexican government, and they run a website called "Truth in Immigration" (TII) which, as we'll see, is a misnomer. Their "Fear-mongering in Congress" (truthinimmigration.org/CompleteStory.aspx?sid=55) discusses an attempt by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) to abolish some aspects of birthright citizenship involving the way that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted for around a century.

First, TII says that he "advocates for the elimination of birthright citizenship", which is probably not true: presumably he only wants to prevent the children of illegal aliens or foreign visitors from being automatically declared citizens. Unfortunately, a May 25, 2008 guest editorial from him (link) could be read as him wanting to eliminate birthright citizenship entirely. However, 1997's H.R.7 was discussed at a hearing (link) where Smith supported it:

Mr. Bilbray's bill would extend birthright citizenship only to a child born in wedlock to parents either of whom is a citizen, national or permanent resident and to a child born out of wedlock if the child's mother is a citizen, national, or permanent resident.

And, 2007's H.R.1940 was co-sponsored by Smith and 99 others and had similiar provisions (link).

So, while Smith isn't helping his cause by failing to specify what he wants, MALDEF didn't give him the benefit of the doubt and isn't being intellectually honest .

And, it gets worse, as we examine this quote from their page:

Representative Smith asserts that our Founding Fathers "never sought to guarantee citizenship to children of illegal immigrants."5 To support his assertion, Representative Smith quotes Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), who proposed the language on citizenship, when in 1866 he stated that the citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners."6 Had Representative Smith finished the quote, it would have read "foreigners... who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."7 In relying on this legislative history, the Supreme Court found that "the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches to every corner of a State's territory."8

Intrigued by their use of ellipses after "foreigners" (bolding added above), I went looking for the full quote (middle column, halfway down) [1]. They left off just one word:

"will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Yes, that's right: the only word they omitted was "aliens".

[1] Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, Page 2890

Immigration2008a · Tue, 06/03/2008 - 09:53 · · Importance: 1