Enrollment at Birth Explained and Repudiated, Part III

In Part II I mentioned that I had not anticipated the governor’s office insinuating itself into the situation. However, I did half-expect and anticipate that DHS/CPS would involve itself and pay us a surprise visit. We were prepared to face that unwelcome contingent square-on should it come, but it never did.

A possible reason it never came is that we had already “locked horns” with that agency some years before as well, the result of which encounter was, in their words by way of official letter, “no evidence to support accusations,” and therefore, “no further action to be taken.” The (false) accusations in question having been leveled by an “anonymous” accuser then living in our neighborhood whose main source of income at the time came from gaming the foster care system in Oklahoma. I might write about that incident and the “poetic justice” that ultimately came to that individual at a later date, as the story is both instructive in several ways, as well as heartening in several others.

I should also explain, before moving on, that, whereas the governor insinuated herself into the matter the first go-’round, she did not, curiously enough, in the second instance. I can’t be sure why, but I should imagine that the most logical answer is that hospital staffers decided it best not to inform on us with the governor’s office the second time. Whatever the case may have been, something occurred in the interim between the first and second instances that changed the staff’s entire approach to the issue. Which is, admittedly, of little value in the grand scheme, but it’s not nothing either. Anyway…

Were it up to me, there would be no Social Security, period. Unless it were genuinely voluntary. Since it exists and is not going away anytime in the foreseeable future (except inasmuch as imminent collapse of the country is foreseeable), our focus should narrow in the meantime to divesting Social Security of the enrollment at birth program, with particular emphasis on halting the illicit practice of extending “enumeration at birth” to American-born foreigners and aliens (legal and illegal alike), thus subjecting such persons to U.S. jurisdiction, and thereby fulfilling the “birthright” citizenship stipulations contained in Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is why I explicitly addressed the problem in the very first line of the very first section of my modest 2010 amendment proposal originally drafted for Senator Coburn’s edification, which reads:

Section 1: The fourteenth amendment to this constitution shall not be construed by the United States or by any State to admit to the rights of citizenship, or subject them to their jurisdiction, children born to immigrant parents illegally residing within the United States, or subject to a foreign state, at the time of their birth. Persons born in the United States to alien parents temporarily and legally residing therein shall be subject to all terms and conditions, privileges and immunities, expressly provided for in their parents’ visas and the laws of the States wherein they reside. The United States retains the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, but no State shall be compelled by the United States to admit to the rights of citizenship, nor subject them to their jurisdiction, any person or persons involuntarily. (bold added)

In the boisterous spirit of President Trump, I hereby remind y’all that, even as far back as August, 2010, I had a very good grasp of the problems inherent to the enrollment at birth program, witnessed by the relevant (bolded) language of the amendment proposal above-cited. I understood the problems inherent to the program ten years farther back in time than even that, in point of fact; what I did not understand and had been “blissfully unaware of” in all that time leading up to two years prior to our seventh child’s birth, was the extent and scope of mis-application and misuse of “enrollment at birth,” and how deeply the corruption had infected American institutions, top to bottom.

During the time when I was “testing the waters” in this matter, had I resided in, say, California or New Jersey, or even Alaska, for that matter, I definitely would have had second thoughts about doing so for obvious reasons. Given that common sense and common decency are more commonplace in my own country than in the three of those combined, I was comfortable with initiating the plan, and of seeing it through to its conclusion. Which brings me to another point:

Our second child was born in Alaska. Even if I’d known about the problems I’ve herein exposed with enrollment at birth at the time, I would likely not have put them to the test in that state. And it’s doubtful my wife would have been as willing and agreeable a participant in my scheme had I proposed it to her then and there in any case. One reason is because we were much younger and less sure of ourselves then.

Imagine being a young couple, twenty-seven (27) and twenty-three (23) years-old respectively, subjected to the pressures and sleights of hand of the sorts by hospital staff previously articulated. As inexperienced as I was at the time, I would have known that I was likely to get in over my head, and would have rejected the idea on that basis alone had it occurred to me. That I was living in a foreign country would have guided my decision-making as well. Which provides a good segue into the next point.

In a laughable comment under Part II in this series, “Joe Smoe” asserts that exercising your right as the parent to enroll (or not) your child in Social Security at your will and pleasure, means that your child’s birth and vital information will be undocumented, and (s)he will therefore be a candidate for deportation. Deportation to where, and at what age, ol’ Joe oddly neglects to specify. As I intimated in my reply to Joe, his is one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read at this site *if* he’s being serious in the comment. However, and oddly enough, his comment (inadvertently) hits on a point I intended to make in this part anyway. Namely this:

Imagine what the reaction of a foreign and/or alien couple (of any age, or immigration status) would be if they insisted on reserving the right to themselves to enroll (or not) their American-born child in Social Security, and hospital admins resorted to the kinds of strong-arm tactics they tried on my wife and me in response the first time. Including idle threats of kidnapping their baby and effectively holding it for ransom. Do you think such a couple would stick to its guns under such a threat, or would they fold up like an accordion and consent under duress to give up that right instead?

For my part, this is not only horrible and self-destructive domestic policy, but also tantamount to an act of war against both belligerent and non-belligerent states whose “best and brightest” and their American-born offspring owe exclusive allegiance to their own people and the countries of their births.

The bottom line in any case is that “enrollment at birth” should only be an option for American-born children belonging to American citizen parents, if it is to be an option for anyone at all going forward. It must cease to be available to American-born children belonging to non-citizen parents, regardless of their immigration status (legal or otherwise), otherwise Trump’s initiative to end birthright citizenship as it currently exists is a non-starter.

God save the Southland!