Reference: Iingam, Rama. Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. factoidz.com. Downloaded 18 December 2010.
Something surprised me while I looked at writing samples from a web site that pays writers for short articles. The article is Iddat, a Scientific Concept in the Islamic Law to Identify the Paternity. The web site identifies writer Rama Iingam as its #4 expert in Divorce and Family Law.
The writer wishes to convince readers that many of [Muslim Law's] concepts are logical, reasonable and above all... scientifically based and have withstood the test of time.
Before we proceed, we need to define Iddat:
Iddat is quite scientific and it is helpful to identify the paternity of a child. Iddat is nothing but a period of probation a Muslim woman has to undergo immediately after she was divorced by her husband or on his death.
By probation, he means isolation. The law prevents confusion over paternity by ensuring that no child is conceived immediately after divorce or after the death of a husband. Here's the interesting part:
When a Muslim wife below the age of 8 who is under the menopause stage, even if her marriage is consummated, she need not undergo Iddat, when she is divorced or when her husband died.
How many 8-year-olds have undergone menopause? Hopefully, the author meant 'puberty;' so we will let that slide.
I admire Rama Iingam's courage to expose Islam's allowance for consummation of pre-pubescent marriage. Or, I am thankful for his naive exposure of a law, Iddat, that should be spelled Idiot.
What kind of culture condones consummation of marriage to a little girl who is only seven years old, or even younger? Muslims get quite worked up over others' sacrilege toward their false god. Perhaps they should concern themselves more with the blasphemy that is Islam.
It's a matter of perspective.
The tea party candidates' stands were mainstream a generation or two ago, and many of those positions remain mainstream. Like the Constitution, they have not changed. Political correctness, for example, has only forced approval (first it was tolerance, then it was acceptance; now it is approval, and next it will be affirmative action) of homosexuality during the last generation. Applying the label of extreme to the straight-parenthood lobby demonstrates a misinformed (or dishonest), extreme perspective. Moreover, for an extreme leftist to call a centrist position "extreme" adds hypocrisy to the previous faults.
The country has moved miles to the left since the 1960s. From the perspective of the left, therefore, those actually in the former center now appear to be on the right, and to those on the extreme left, those in the former center appear to be on the extreme right. This serves their purposes by grouping the center with the real extreme right. To those in the mainstream, however, opposition to adoption by homosexuals remains neither extreme nor wacky.
The left began using terms such as 'extreme' in order to demonize and marginalize the center-right. Such ad hominem attacks alleviate any need to deal honestly with the issue and to argue the unsupportable. They are intended to elicit over-reaction from opponents in order to discredit them. The are also intended to whip up often-violent fervor in their allies. Such verbal aggression has polarized the public, agitated emotional responses on both sides, and inhibited reasoned discussion. Hypocritically, the left is usually the first to protest against accurate labels such as liberal, radical, socialist, and Marxist.
The questioner states that Mike Lee's ancestors became citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves. Lee is Caucasian. What was that about doing one's homework?
Congress intended the 14th Amendment to prevent denying citizenship to former slaves, not to bestow citizenship on children of illegal aliens.
The author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, stated..., 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers....'
"In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment meant... 'absolute and complete jurisdiction.... Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent.'" (Wikipedia)
Note that even though such persons were born in the US, they were considered aliens.
This did not change until United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, in 1898, when the Supreme Court ruled that a child born to non-citizen parents legally and permanently in the US was a citizen. That still did not give birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. (Wikipedia)
Even Native Americans, considered subjects of "Indian" nations, did not receive citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1884 (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) that American Indians born in the United States could not claim citizenship because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens today exists as a de facto practice without major legal precedent. Many falsely claim that 1982's case Plyler v. Doe conferred citizenship on children of trespassing aliens. Plyler v. Doe merely extended equal protection and required the states to provide free benefits to such children.
According to Congressional Research Service, "The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific issues of whether the native-born child of illegal aliens... may be a U.S. citizen."
Congress has responsibility to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in order to enforce it. People like Mike Lee remaine completely within the legal and social mainstreams for wanting to refine the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment clearly excluded children of legal aliens from citizenship. It therefore excluded the children of trespassing aliens. What the questioner claims has existed for "centuries" came about only recently.
The mainstream and historical positions of tea party candidates are extreme only to those on the extreme left, outrageous only to those with an un-American perspective, and 'whacked' only to those with fractured knowledge of history. The question is truly a case of the iron pot calling the stainless steel kettle 'black.'