TOM PATTERSON: Birthright Citizenship Was Never Intended By The 14th Amendment Authors

TOM PATTERSON: Birthright Citizenship Was Never Intended By The 14th Amendment Authors

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

The Left has done a great job of influencing the issue of birthright citizenship. Most Americans oppose granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants, but they also believe that we’re stuck with this policy.

They’re told repeatedly that the practice is enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, that it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the jurisprudence around it is settled law, and that challenging the matter now is unconstitutional and disloyal.

None of that happens to be true, but in the meantime, we’re saddled with a logically incoherent immigration system. Yes, immigrants are central to America’s story. But immigration law must be dedicated to the common good, not the benefit of those willing to flout our laws.

Immigrants should be vetted to ensure that they are likely to assimilate and be of value to their adopted country. Instead, we incentivize illegal immigrant mothers to cross the border before birth so their offspring can be entitled to lifelong citizenship.

So, did the writers of the 14th amendment botch the job, subjecting their descendants to such a dysfunctional system? No. In language more commonly understood at the time, they plainly stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein in they reside.”

The 14th amendment was written in 1868 to clarify that the newly emancipated slaves were granted all the privileges and rights of citizenship. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the authors had the slightest intent to grant citizenship to all born on American soil, much less those with parents living here illegally. The jurisdiction language was added specifically to prevent such an interpretation.

Advocates of constitutional originalism should also note that the author, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained it was meant to describe “a full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

He clearly is not describing an illegal alien. Senator Lyman Trumbull, an influential supporter of the amendment, also emphasized “jurisdiction meant not giving allegiance to anyone else.”

The legal scholar Lino Graglia points out that, as the authors would have understood it, those who are born to parents legally in the US “are subject to the jurisdiction there of and so would have constitutional claim to birthright citizenship.” Just as plain is the fact the 14th Amendment, as written, would not apply to those born to illegal aliens, soldiers posted in a foreign country, or foreign diplomats.

Birthright advocates claim that the 1897 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark clinches their claim that children of illegal immigrants born here are entitled to the full citizenship. Wong had traveled back to China with his parents and was unjustifiably denied reentry until the decision was overturned by the Court. They ruled that to bar Wong would be “to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of [European] parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

That makes sense, since Wong had the necessary documentation and his parents had been on American soil legally at the time of his birth, there being no laws defining them otherwise at the time. This is exactly the reason why this much ballyhooed ruling does not apply to the practice of granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. In fact, the Supreme Court has never opined on the question.

The clear intent of the amendment, the language, and the historical record are all in accord. Yet the 14th Amendment has been completely untethered from its original meaning and impact. The Left and the Democratic Party have taken something meant to right a wrong and manipulated it to the advantage of those entering the country illegally.

There are at least 5 million children in America who have received citizenship inappropriately, or about one in eight U.S. births. That works well for those who relentlessly seek ways to produce millions of future Democrats.

The rest of us should continue to respect our Constitution and our history. The incredible privilege of citizenship should go only to those who merit it.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

TOM PATTERSON: The Reason For The Post-COVID Lack Of Trust In Doctors’ Advice

TOM PATTERSON: The Reason For The Post-COVID Lack Of Trust In Doctors’ Advice

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Vaccines may not be the most spectacular of all the miracles of modern medicine, but they are arguably the most beneficial. They have virtually eliminated the infectious diseases of childhood, including measles, diphtheria, mumps, rubella, smallpox, and polio that were once the sources of unimaginable worry and grief for parents everywhere.

Vaccines are estimated to have saved over 150 million lives in the last five decades, cutting infant mortality by 40% globally and over 50% in Africa. Closer to home, of all babies born in the U.S. in 2001 alone, a 2005 study showed that vaccines prevented 33,000 deaths and 14 million illnesses. Vaccines are also the most cost effective of all medical interventions, easily yielding the greatest amount of benefit received per dollar spent.

Like all medical treatments, vaccinations have side effects and risks, but they are rare and mostly insignificant, like a sore shoulder. There was for some time a concern that vaccines or the mercury in them caused autism, understandably so because autism was becoming much more frequently diagnosed just as vaccine use was expanding worldwide.

The scientific community took the threat seriously. Today, many exhaustive studies involving hundreds of thousands of children have all shown the same thing: vaccines don’t cause autism.

Yet in spite of the record of success and all the lives and dollars saved, experiences with COVID have led Americans to become less trusting of vaccines. Before COVID, America was a world leader in vaccination rates with 95% coverage. Since 2020, though, the percentage of children receiving the recommended vaccines has declined by 2% or about 70,000 children.

The result has been a resurgence of childhood diseases once considered vestiges of the past. Measles was considered to be entirely eliminated in 2020, yet last year multiple outbreaks sickened hundreds of children. Cases of chickenpox, whooping cough, and pneumonia are all on the rise. Trend lines don’t look good.

Clearly, millions of Americans have become skeptical of medical authority, especially that coming from government. What happened to cause Americans to adopt behaviors that re-introduced these diseases into the population and caused needless suffering?

The answer is that our public health establishment became politicized, shilling for approved government policy rather than acting as honest, reasonably humble stewards of the public good. The bonds of trust were broken because we were often manipulated rather than informed. We were proselytized rather than respected. Vaccines were rushed to market and their benefits oversold.

Fairly or not, the bulk of criticism has centered on Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Adviser to the President on COVID. Dr. Fauci was a respected, competent public health physician until he became a celebrity. Signature prayer candles, action figures, and other trappings apparently caused him to lose his way.

For example, Dr. Fauci early on warned against dependence on mask wearing, citing “unintended consequences” and noting that they didn’t provide much protection. Yet he later repeatedly overstated the known benefits of masks and never disavowed his previous declarations, leading many to conclude that his counsel seemed rooted more in shifting public perceptions than actual evidence.

Fauci also had the exasperating habit of changing his estimate regarding the percentage of the population needing to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity, the point at which protection effectively extends to all, vaccinated or not. He finally admitted that he changed his statements based only on his assessment of what the public was ready to hear.

He recommended mandating six feet of distance from others in public, although he later admitted it was nothing more than a personal guesstimate. He initially was an enthusiastic supporter of gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan lab, but later evaded questions and denied involvement when the consequences of the catastrophic lab leak became known.

What Fauci left unsaid was equally harmful. He neglected to point out that participating in a George Floyd riot was as unhealthy as mingling in any other crowd in 2020 and that there was no evidence supporting school shutdowns.

Fauci indignantly informed his critics that “I am the science.” But the days of authority-based science are past. Fauci’s self-serving deceptions broke the trust relationship with the American people. We may be reaping the consequences for years to come.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

TOM PATTERSON: Lax Enforcement Of Rules, Misplaced Sympathy Plague Poor School Children

TOM PATTERSON: Lax Enforcement Of Rules, Misplaced Sympathy Plague Poor School Children

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

What accounts for the differences in academic achievement between inner-city poverty area schools and high-income public schools? We‘ve all heard of the dreadful schools in cities like Chicago and Baltimore with no children in the entire school able to achieve even baseline levels of competence in math or verbal skills and many other schools with a third at most achieving at grade level.

Many would assume funding is the major determinant, but the facts don’t back that up. American public schools have traditionally been funded by local property taxes, which provide a clear advantage to the wealthy. But that was then. Today, education funding is complex, with federal funding for special programs, equalization formulas, and other inputs making it difficult for even experts to determine the bottom line.

A recent study from the Urban Institute confirmed other research showing that “when considering federal, state and local funding,” all states but three “allocate more per student funding to poor kids than to non-poor kids.” Moreover, researchers from Harvard and Stanford found that each extra $1,000 per pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of 1/10 of one percent of a standard deviation. In other words, more spending and more learning are essentially unrelated.

If more spending did produce more achievement, we would be morally obligated to provide it. As it is, we must look for other reasons to explain the achievement gap, examining how well the allocated funds are used. Education researcher Jay Greene observes that “wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefits for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.”

Effective schools, whenever possible, prioritize the learning interests of students, eschewing the fads and misconceptions that plague the public school establishment. When a Stanford education professor helpfully developed an “equity-based” curriculum proposal, gullible California educators issued guidance against students taking algebra courses before high school.

After decades of the promotion of “context-based” reading instruction, it became obvious that the old-fashioned phonics instruction produced better readers. The Columbia University center that pushed context-based instruction was finally closed in 2023.

The devastating COVID closures demanded by the teachers’ unions disproportionately affected low-income public school students. The closures lasted longer and caused more learning loss for poor students than for those in private schools and more upscale districts.

The different, more “lenient” treatment afforded to low-income kids is evident also in the cellphone bans proliferating in the schools. Educators are suddenly realizing, after 20 years or so, that daily staring at a small screen bearing social media messages is not healthy for the developing brain.

According to advisories from the Surgeon General, UNESCO, and others, adolescent cell phone usage impairs academic achievement by distracting students’ attention from classroom instruction. Chronic cell phone overuse is also isolating and interferes with normal social development. Widespread cell phone use is associated with higher rates of teenage depression and suicide.

Eight states and many school districts have imposed cell phone bans, and others, including Arizona, are considering legislation. But there are objections. Parents feel the need to “keep in touch” with their children. Phones are also needed to locate friends in the lunchroom (yes, really). More seriously, parents worry about not having contact in a school shooting, even though the chances of any student encountering even one during their entire school life is vanishingly small.

The bigger problem is that legislative cell phone bans are typically so loose and riddled with exceptions that they are practically useless. California, with great fanfare from Governor Gavin Newsom, passed a bill that only required schools to “adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting smart phones by July 2026.” Any school with even an insignificant modification in cell phone usage would be legally in compliance, and enforcement would be a snap. Helicopter parents would still be in business. Florida’s ban is limited to classroom time only.

Private schools and high-end public schools pushed ahead with their own rules, which typically are more comprehensive and tightly written. Strict, uniform restrictions are easier for both teachers and students to understand. Meanwhile, poor students once again are saddled with misdirected compassion and low expectations.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

Argentina’s Milei Seems To Have Cracked The Code On How To Cut Government Spending

Argentina’s Milei Seems To Have Cracked The Code On How To Cut Government Spending

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

Americans of all persuasions have reached a rough consensus in favor of cutting government spending. We all, with the possible exception of hard-left Democrats, know that our present course is unsustainable and will lead to fiscal ruin.

Yet so far, no politician in a position to do so has been able to accomplish the feat. Ronald Reagan’s heart was in the right place, but he wasn’t able to get a reluctant Congress to go along without giving up his dream of ending the Cold War.

Most presidents and congresses since have been MIA in fiscal discipline. Donald Trump, although successful in many policy initiatives, failed utterly in this most critical area of all.

But now there is suddenly hope arising from an unexpected quarter – Argentina. Javier Milei, their new president, has shown after one year that it is in fact possible to reduce the size and scope of the state. It takes clear vision and resolve, not just bluster and campaign slogans that melt under populist pressure to spend.

Milei’s political persona is brash and flamboyant. He sported a chainsaw during his presidential campaign to dramatize his zeal for cutting spending. But he is a serious economist, a former university professor who has published over 50 academic papers. He fully understands the relationship between free-market principles and economic growth.

He doesn’t pander. During his campaign, he was candid about the effect of the large cuts in spending he contemplated including the termination of tens of thousands of jobs, the elimination of government agencies, and the loss of regulatory protection many would experience.

Here’s the key. Unlike most politicians who make extravagant promises, he did what he said he would. The International Monetary Fund confirms that in his first year, he cut government spending by an astonishing 30%, he eliminated or downsized 12 government ministries, he canceled 80% of public infrastructure projects, and he reduced the public payroll by 20%.

The results already speak for themselves. Argentina has a balanced budget for the first time in 10 years. The first quarterly surplus appeared in April. Significantly, inflation has been reduced from an intolerable 25% monthly in 2023 to about 2% per month currently. Argentina’s credit ratings are starting to improve. Output is beginning to expand.

Once Argentina’s banks ceased printing money to cover chronic deficits, economic pain was bound to ensue. Massive debt is still out there. As Milei warned, unemployment is up and the poverty rate has jumped to nearly 50%.

Yet Argentines seem willing to stick with the program. The amazing drop in inflation (they have their money back) and the belief that the pain will be worth the gain seems to be keeping up morale. Milei’s approval rating is 55% and rising, with few signs of widespread discontent.

It helps that deregulation has already produced benefits. The Milei government has improved everyday life by slashing red tape around things like air travel, divorce, and satellite Internet. A housing boom has developed with rent deregulation. Rents have stabilized and mortgages are once again available. The poverty rate is already falling.

The left is not impressed, of course. Al-Jazeera calls Milei’s presidency a “disaster.” The BBC worries that he is “influencing” America’s new policy makers, asserting that “taking inspiration from Milei to reduce the size of government doesn’t make any sense.” The New York Times frets about the hardships being forced on Argentines.

The tantrum on the left is understandable. Argentina, once a wealthy nation, has been brought low by decades of autocratic, collectivist economic governance. Milei convinced voters that Argentina should not follow Cuba, Venezuela, and other failed economies down the “soak the rich” path.

He preached not more government but less, not more trade barriers but fewer, not higher taxes but lower. If Argentina succeeds, leftists have some serious explaining to do.

The incoming American administration seems interested in learning from Argentina’s experience. “The deficit was the root of all evils – without it, there’s no debt…no inflation,” Milei counsels.

There is no secret sauce either, just the basic sound economic principles that are the known roots of prosperity. We don’t need more study at this point, just the steely determination to do the right thing.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.

Is This The Golden Age For American Government Reform?

Is This The Golden Age For American Government Reform?

By Dr. Thomas Patterson |

America’s friends of limited government have had a rough go lately. Government bureaucrats and spenders of all stripes have been living it up.

Since 2001, the last time the federal budget was balanced, federal revenues have shown healthy growth of 3.9% annually, while inflation averaged only 2.5%. These figures would normally signify a sound, sustainable economy. But spending has grown at a rate of 5.5%, so instead we have a destabilizing gross federal debt of $36 trillion.

The response of the Biden/Harris administration to this looming catastrophe was to double down on spending. In an era of relative peace and prosperity, they kept mindlessly passing out money to win political points.

The hope now is that the Trump/Vance administration can reverse this madness. If so, the Department of Education (DOE) would be a good place to start. It is a prototype bureaucracy that has grown and prospered despite a complete lack of mission success.

The DOE was created in the 70s, ostensibly to improve the chronically ailing achievement scores in government schools. But in spite of the hundreds of billions spent, it has totally failed. Instead, it has provided steady employment for thousands of education bureaucrats who administer federal grants and programs, and write jargon-laden academic papers, yet have made no discernible difference in the quality of American education.

Remember Goals 2000, Every Student Succeeds, or No Child Left Behind? What about the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, or offices dedicated to American-Asians, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Hispanics, African-Americans, and other hyphenated groups singled out for special treatment? Of course you don’t, unless you are one of the lucky recipients of their largess.

But DOE has been worse than useless. It provides a platform for the teachers’ unions, by far the most influential protector of the status quo and obstruction to school choice. The damaging COVID shutdown was the latest blow to union-run public schools delivered by the DOE/unions dynamic duo.

Most private schools and charters, with access to the same medical information, kept their schools mostly open. Their students didn’t suffer the crippling learning loss that the unfortunate wards of the DOE did.

Ronald Reagan was the first of many leaders to advocate for the DOE’s elimination. But like bureaucracies everywhere, DOE is dedicated above all else to its own preservation, which is the one goal in which it has succeeded. It won’t be easy, but returning education policy to the states would be a great service to future generations of students.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a similar failed history. When it was created in 1964, the U.S. homeownership rate was 64%. After six decades of HUD stewardship, the homeownership rate is still 64%.

It’s not like they haven’t tried. HUD’s mortgage companies – Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae manage multiple housing programs with federal finance agencies, all with the goal of controlling costs and boosting home ownership.

Yet under HUD’s “leadership,” home prices have far outstripped inflation. When HUD was created in 1967, the average home price was $22,000, about three times the average family income. Today the average home costs $500,000, seven times income. Meanwhile, European households without a comparable bureaucracy average 69% home ownership.

HUD has spent about $4 trillion since its inception with little to show for it. The housing market would function at least as well if the government simply got out of the way.

As these and other bureaucracies have grown and prospered, we have developed a very centralized form of government. In the land of the free, we have grown comfortable sending our tax money to Washington for faceless bureaucrats to return to us, always with strings attached.

We get the healthcare, the education, the roads and other goodies that government decrees. Government buys or subsidizes everything from unpopular electric cars and trains, state and local government public safety departments, “climate initiatives,” and much more.

Reforming an entrenched bureaucracy, much less eliminating it, is extraordinarily difficult. Yet the present could be a rare opportunity to repair this destruction to our way of life. We must be fearless and strategic in reducing government excess and providing a successful economic future for our descendants.

Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.