In recent years, the Republican base has been so very angry that in many elections they've gravitated toward the most batcrap-crazy candidate available (the better to sabotage government, as if they really want Anarchy).

Right now it's Ben Carson.

Let's look at some of the off-the-wall things he's said:

1) Obamacare is the worst thing for Black people since slavery. Really? Having health coverage, as opposed to none, is like being abducted, sold, whipped, and forced to work for no pay?

2) People aren't born gay-- proof: Guys go to prison and turn gay. His argument is utterly non-sequitur. Logic escapes him.

3) The pyramids were built by Joseph as granaries. Actually, the pyramids are more than a thousand years older than the time of Joseph, and are too solid to store anything but a pharaoh's corpse, which is what was found therein.

4) The purpose of the Second Amendment is so that we can take on our government. I've dealt with this seditious insanity in a previous letter.

5) If the German people hadn't been disarmed, the Holocaust might have been prevented. Guns are not the issue. In as much as anti-Semitism was endemic, and the German people enthusiastically turned in their Jewish neighbors, we cannot accept that more than a few would have sacrificed their own lives in a futile attempt to protect Jews.

6) Evolution is a theory of Satan. Actually, it's a theory of Darwin, who was a fairly decent fellow (more so than Trump).

And how did Carson get through med school when he doesn't understand biology?

It's enough that Ben Carson has no background or training for making public policy and no understanding of the issues.

But his propensity for saying nutball things like the above should disqualify him.

Unfortunately that's exactly what his fans like about him.

Perhaps we should have mandatory psychological screening before we allow people to vote.

Or breed.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

Every year they stream into the US from all corners of the world: 60,000 from China, plus 250,000 more from South Korea, Taiwan, and South America, to have their babies on US soil.

After the birth, the parents can return home with their child and his US passport or they may stay and collect welfare, Social Security benefits, have access to Medicare, and other federal programs. Seventy percent decide to stay.

It's a win for the legal and illegal immigrant parents of anchor babies but a loss of an annual $3.5 billion for the US taxpayer.

However, according to one interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it's all perfectly legal. Nonsense, others claim. The 14th confers no such legality for anchor babies.

So just what does this contentious amendment say? Is birthright citizenship and the unsustainable burden it imposes on the US economy a correct interpretation of the 14th or should the entire concept of anchor baby citizenship be jettisoned?

It's not an easy question to answer with both sides hurling incoming at each other.

Precisely, what does the 14th Amendment say? In part it reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.“ So, according to some, that settles it. If a person is born here, he belongs here. But if it were that simple, there would be no argument.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, just three years after the Civil War, to protect the rights of native-born black Americans whose rights were being denied.

This Amendment was not concerned with immigrants since the US had no immigration policy at that time. The 14th was written for native-born Americans. The writer and sponsor of the Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard (1862-1871), clarified the meaning of the Amendment in a hearing before Congress.

The Amendment, said Howard, “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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to which persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States.”

And so it was understood for 30 years until two Supreme Court cases blurred its intent and meaning.

In 1898, in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that a couple who had legally immigrated to the US made their American-born son a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. (Note: the baby's parents were legal immigrants.)

The second ruling is the 1982 case, Plyler v. Doe. Justice William Brennan writing for the Supreme Court's majority decision attached an addendum stating that legal immigrants cannot be treated differently from illegal aliens.

The US v. Ark case muddied the meaning of the 14th Amendment; the Plyler v. Doe case annihilated it.

The Supreme Court turned the purpose and meaning of the 14th ---as understood and ratified by Congress in 1868---on its head.

There are three arguments against this about-face.

One: An applicant for citizenship must be 21 years old. Therefore, when the anchor baby reaches maturity he can apply for citizenship; he does not inherit it immediately as a birthright. He and his family must wait 21 years.

Two: The Supreme Court has ruled that one cannot derive benefit from an illegal act. Applied to anchor babies, a woman who is an illegal alien cannot benefit from giving birth on US soil either immediately by government financial aid or through anticipated benefits when her child reaches his majority.

Three: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Therefore, if a person is not born or naturalized in the US, he is not subject to its jurisdiction of this country but to his home country. Thus, illegals and their children are under the jurisdiction of their native country and are disqualified for citizenship.

But there is a simpler way to resolve the controversy of anchor babies.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

It is Congress that has the power to regulate immigration as it has in the past, not the Supreme Court, not a constitutional amendment, not the president, not even the vote of the people, only Congress.

It is Congress that will ultimately decide if anchors are here to stay or if it's anchors aweigh.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA