Skip to content

If, unlike me, you think illegal babies

11/02/2018

Have “birthright citizenship”, you might want to read this opinion. THIS has ALWAYS been my opinion. Even when I was a long-haired outlaw biker, and at that age and attitude I wouldn’t have been expected to think this, but it was a thought in my dazed mind. Let me grab a clip or two:

The question of whether birthright citizenship should be abolished is based on the faulty premise that our Constitution actually mandates it. In fact, the text of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause reads: “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.”

Now, what is that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” thing? Another clip from a bit further down the article, I love it when an educated and properly trained scholar finds stuff that were my opinions:

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Therefore, being an illegal alien coming to the USA to download an anchor baby ISN’T this. If they were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, working on actual citizenship, yeah. You’re good, no problem. However, tourist babies do NOT fall under this heading.

The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, “domiciled”) residents was a citizen.

Specifically, tourist babies do not fall under this. Not people who are from Sweden on a tour of America, and definitely not illegal aliens.

We’ll see how SCOTUS votes on POTUS’ E.O. regarding this when the demoncraps lose their mind and contest it. And they will.

 

 

3 Comments
  1. Dr. Jeff permalink
    11/03/2018 01:57

    Add to that the comments of the author of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan. He didn’t believe it conferred birthright citizenship either.

    It comes down to the understanding of “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof….” It seems that Senator Howard did not believe that it applied to foreign citizens merely visiting here (covers the Chinese and Russian mothers on tourist visas), let alone those here illegally. That would be the basis for the 1898 decision.

    One problem with a modern interpretation of the clause is that the concept of an illegal immigrant didn’t exist in 1868.

    If the mother is not here legally, it would reasonably follow that the child who is here as the result of an illegal act should not be a U.S. Citizen.

  2. 11/03/2018 12:20

    Do much of this choir chime? Exactly my thought, THANK YOU! Or, ThanQ. 😉

  3. 11/06/2018 02:15

    Reblogged this on Boudica2015.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: