|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I have said it before and I will say it again, the 14th Amendment is by far the worst amendment to the Constitution. It broke every possible rule of constitutional government beginning with simplicity and timelessness. The 14th is a sprawling mess meant to deal with immediate problems that used sloppy broad language and quickly became a magnet for every leftist effort to conduct backdoor rewrites of the law.
Consider that in just the last few years, Democrats used 4 of the 5 sections of the 14th to argue that…
1. That Trump was ineligible to hold office
2. That Congress was obligated to raise the debt limit
3. That men who pretend they’re women are entitled to do so
and now
4. That illegal aliens born in this country are automatically citizens
We know exactly what Section 1 of the 14th was aimed at. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” was meant to protect the civil rights of freed slaves. It did not mean that anyone who happened to give birth in this country automatically made their kid a citizen, but that’s the absurd premise of birthright citizenship.
And the current Trump executive order meant to apply to future children of illegal aliens is being challenged on the basis of the Fourteenth. This battle is almost certainly going to end up in the Supreme Court which should be interesting, though far from an inevitable happy outcome. If you think Neil or Amy are going to vote to eliminate birthright citizenship, well good luck with that. Ideally we should repeal old number fourteen which is probably the sloppiest and messiest of the amendments. If you doubt that, go look up at that list above.
Not likely to happen, but a man can dream.
There’s no such thing as birthright citizenship. Or any of the other things that Dems keep finding in the 14th Amendment which was not written to do any of these things.
Excellent analysis, thanks Daniel !!!!!
Yes, yes.
Trump should ask Congress to deal with the issue via new law.
Without the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the birthright citizenship people would have a point. But no person who comes into the United States illegally is under the jurisdiction of the United States (or of any state for that matter) and as such is not entitled to birthright citizenship–that is unless the drafters of that amendment stuck that phrase in there just for the heck of it
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ju·ris·dic·tion
/ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/
noun
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
“federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case”
Similar:
authority
control
power
dominion
rule
administration
command
sway
leadership
sovereignty
ascendancy
hegemony
mastery
say
influence
the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
“the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal”
a system of law courts; a judicature.
plural noun: jurisdictions
“in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder”
The textual “shadows” and “penumbras” that justified the wholesale murder of unborn children– 14th Amendment privacy jurisprudence buttressing Roe v. Wade– was repudiated by the current Supreme Court. It’s an even money bet that the Supremes will follow Justice Clarence Thomas and do the same thing with “birthright” citizenship.
We can only hope so. I wouldn’t bet on it. The wishy washy supremes don’t believe in the nation any more than the three Lefties on the court. One has to believe in the nation to believe it should be defended from invasion.
No nation on earth indulges in the madness of birthright citizenship.
Except for Albania, Angola, Angulla, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Channel Islands (Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man), Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montserrat, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, São Tomé e Principe, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor Leste, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Yemen.
The sponsors of the 14th Amd. made it quite clear that the Amd did not make “born here” children automatic citizens. I am away so don’t have my sources other than this one:
https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html,
In a nutshell, the Amd. sponsors were actually questioned about e.g., children born to non-citizen Irish laborers brought here for work, and I think about children of diplomats. The answer was (paraphrasing), “no, they still owe allegiance to their home country, therefore are not under the complete and sole jurisdiction of the United States, so their children would not be citizens.”
It’s worth noting, too, that Native Americans were not automatically citizens by birth until the passage of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Prior, they were presumed to owe allegiance to their tribes, not solely the U.S.
I believe it was Harry Blackman who “found” the birthright citizenship- maybe in the 1980s. Until then there was no such right and even American Indians were not citizens under the 14th amendment until congress acted to grant them citizenship in the 1920s.
Birthright citizenship is now a scam and lucrative business, along with chain migration. Once the anchor baby is born in the USA, through chain migration the entire clan gets a free pass to enter the USA and generally these people vote Democrat. It’s corrupt and of course loved by corrupt Democrats because it helps them stay in power.
I could be wrong of course, but it seems like the error was started by a footnote in a Justice Breyer paper. Apparently, in the footnote, he made comment and it has been followed as law since that point.
Trump could seal it by asking Congress to make it law. After all, altho slim, the GOP dominates both the House and Senate.
Please allow common sense to prevail!
In DC? In the GOP with its rinos?
There is not one single Amendment in the U.S. Constitution that allows for Illegal Aliens to come here and take all the jobs and livelehoods of American Citizens and therefore we need Boarder Wall and all illegal aliens returned to where they came from
Some things are so simple that they don’t require an explanation. OJ was guilty, Pro Wrestling is staged, and Liberace was gay. And now this must be said: Standing on our dirt doesn’t make you a citizen.
NEVER Lawfully Ratified. It should be declared NULL and VOID. https://barefootsworld.org/14uncon.html
The rights enumerated in our Constitution apply to both native and naturalized CITIZENS. This does not include ANY who have violated Federal law and local states’ laws to surreptitiously enter our country.
Operationally, illegal entry cannot afford rights for this kind of willful disregard of our country, laws and borders.
While seeing a woman ready for labor attempting illegal entry may pull one’s heartstrings. she is untitled to any benefit from her obvious and intended disregard for our country and laws to seek that which will benefit her at the expense of EVERY foreigner who went through the proper channels and waited, often years, to obtain legal entry to become a citizen of our country.
Our national and local responsibilities are to our citizenry, not that of the multitude of illegals coming here to deliberately leech from the tax payers benefits at the cost of our citizens who are also in need of that same assistance.
Those who feel the desire to help the downtrodden of the world can volitionally aim themselves in various directions, giving of their own time, money and talents and help others. Here in the USA we have orphans, widows, Veterans, the elderly and the mentally ill all of whom can constructively benefit from well designed programs of assistance rather than supporting illegals who are not entitled to anything at all!
Yet another excellent argument for a Convention of the States for the purpose of repealing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments.
No. We cannot have any Convention until we have total dominance – a super-majority and overwhelming popular support.
Otherwise the Constitution of the USA will be gutted and replaced with the Constitution of the USSR – the most radical one of course as they had more than one.
There are some 8+ billion people on the planet. The way the dems interpret the 14th Amendment, they’re all entitled to to come to America and drop an anchor baby which entitles the entire family to come to America and enjoy the spoils of America’s generous social services system while John and Jane Q. American gets the privilege of footing the bill.
But Americans have a big heart and deep pockets so we can afford them all. At least that what the left thinks. Of course, that’s easy to think when it’s “other peoples money” you’re giving away.
Mostly agree.
However, as we’ve seen recently in Maui, East Palestine, North Carolina and Tennessee, and even in a Leftist stronghold in California …
Dems do NOT believe Americans are entitled to our generosity.
So they only care about 7.7 billion people on Earth.
Great point! I stand corrected! American leftists (aka democrats, liberals, far left MSM, etc.) don’t give a flying fuk about America or the American people.
Ironically, as far back as 1869, foreigners were gaming the naturalized citizens rights, by coming to USA, becoming naturalized USA citizens without informing their home country governments, than going back to live in their home countries, and only coming back to USA in case they needed to escape their home countries due to war, revolution, etc.
I was just reading about that in President Grant’s correspondence from his first term (1869-1873).