Posted on 08/21/2015 5:55:59 AM PDT by Din Maker
The 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to everyone born in the United States. In order to assume that it does, a person has to actually ignore what it says. The Supreme Court set the precedent of birthright citizenship by misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Poor education about our history and government ensures that We the People never get uppity over this unconstitutional misinterpretation. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give citizenship to former slaves who were in the United States through no fault of their own.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. If it granted citizenship for no reason other than being born on U.S. soil, you would think that the U.S. would have started granting birthright citizenship in 1868, right? Wrong. They didn’t, because that isn’t what the 14th Amendment says. As a matter of fact, two years prior to its ratification, Senator Jacob Howard explained the actual intent of the 14th Amendment. He said, “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
The key to inheriting birthright citizenship is being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries they are citizens of. We deport illegal aliens back to the countries that they are subject to the jurisdiction of. If they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they would have all privileges and rights that go with that jurisdiction including voting, enlisting in our armed forces, and running for public office. Not being part of our jurisdiction, they are ineligible. They can do so in their home countries. The Supreme Court held to this in the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case. They decided that the children of foreign ministers were not granted birthright citizenship based on the fact that they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. An American Indian was not granted citizenship, because his parents weren’t completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction, being also subject to an Indian nation. If an American Indian was not granted American Citizenship by birthright after the 14th Amendment was ratified, then we can certainly conclude that birthright citizenship isn’t granted to foreigners by the 14th Amendment. Congress didn’t grant citizenship to American Indians until 1924!
It wasn’t until 1898, 30 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that a case came in front of the Supreme Court that changed things. Keep in mind that the 5th Clause of the 14th Amendment specifically gives congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, not the Supreme Court.
Wong Kim Ark was a Chinese man who was born in the United States to Chinese citizens. They returned to China and took little Wong with them. Eventually Wong wanted to come back, but he wasn’t allowed due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1862 that prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States. Wong sued and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they pulled a rabbit out of their hat and said that the 14th Amendment granted him birthright citizenship, which it clearly doesn’t. The Supreme Court often misinterprets the Constitution, which is why the founding fathers did not give them the power to interpret the Constitution to begin with. They purposefully left judicial review out of the list of enumerated powers that the Constitution authorizes the courts. The Supreme Court usurped this power in Marbury v. Madison and it hasn’t yet been properly challenged. I have my hopes.
Now that Won Kim Ark was granted citizenship based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution, the other unconstitutional power of the Supreme Court kicked in, which is to set precedent, effectively legislating a new law. Now it applied to all babies born on U.S. soil. This went on until 1965 when it was no longer good enough to liberals to merely give birthright citizenship to the children who were born in the U.S. No, liberals wanted this birthright to extend to the family of the baby.
Congress passed the unconstitutional 1965 Immigration Act. This gave birth to the term “anchor baby.” Listen carefully to those on the left like Jeb Bush who keep saying, “If you’re born in this country, you’re a citizen!” They are deflecting the issue. The term “anchor baby” has nothing to do with the citizenship of the baby. It’s far worse now. The baby is granted birthright citizenship straight out of illegal alien womb and instantly legalizes the alien who birthed it. The baby anchors the mother to the U.S. with a green card. It keeps getting worse, because the chain on this anchor has gotten longer and now applies to a growing list of extended family members. When an illegal alien squeezes out a kid out on American soil now, the kid is holding a bag of green cards for the whole family waiting on the other side of the border.
Even if you are stupid enough to believe that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any baby born on American soil, it’s asinine to assume this extends to the entire family. Granting birthright citizenship to the baby of an illegal alien is unconstitutional enough, but the 1965 Immigration Act is borderline treasonous.
Always question the constitutionality of any law that Congress passes. Most are unconstitutional. If they pass a law called an Act, you can safely bet your house that it’s unconstitutional. The Gun Control Act and The Civil Rights Act are just two more of many unconstitutional and dangerous laws that Congress has passed. They always do it under the guise of being caring and yet they always infringe our liberties and/or sovereignty.
There is no need to ratify another amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship, because it doesn’t exist. We merely have to stop applying unconstitutional Supreme Court decrees to the populous. They can’t legislate. All we need to do is read the 14th Amendment and follow what it actually says. This is not to say that I wouldn’t love to see the 14th Amendment repealed anyway. There are other reasons that I want it repealed, which I cover in more detail in my book.
Keep in mind that the 5th Clause of the 14th Amendment specifically gives congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, not the Supreme Court.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Most important point.
Please ensure this get to BOR who seems to have an entirely different and wrong reading of court decisions on the matter. The jerk virtually brow beat off the air a commentator whom was right on the issue. I howled when he said their was a supreme court decision, 9-0, which said anyone born here was a citizen then referred to a decision that was not 9-0 and had nothing to do with the issue anyway.
O’Really was getting real tough with the female constitutional lawyers who usually appear om his show. Laura, Ann etal show boycott his show. They should shut their Answering machines off though. You never know what O’Really will sayon one...... He had two Rump swabs on last night to agree with him. Let’s see him go up against Mark Levin.
It was 5-4 and it was a “dicta” (footnote) that Brennan put in after the fact.
No, the 14th Amendment doesn’t. However, an overwhelming Democrat congress with a Rat president and a minority Republican senate which cannot muster 40 votes could.
Anyone ever think that the rats 2016 strategy is to move the war on women, gays, blacks, treehuggers to the war on immigration? The MSM doesn’t differentiate between legal or illegal, and that will be the meme going forward.
Meanwhile Trump opened the door, the Conservative commentators took the bait and that is why these RINO’s are not going along with it. Things with the Rats don’t happen by accident. We should know that by now. Rush, Levin and company, to show their superior intellect jumped into the argument, Coulter wrote the book and our candidates are running around the country talking about it.
Bush said it best, sometimes you have to lose in the primaries to win the election. That phrase is going to be prophetic.
And what are we doing about it? We are focusing on Hillary. Brilliant strategy. What we should be focusing on is Planned Parenthood. They served that up to us on a silver platter and what is congress doing? /crickets.
BOR won’t have levin on cause levin would crush him.
The smugness emanating from BOR on this subject is irritating me to no end.
Thanks for the link, this is new site with lots of potential I look forward to seeing its growth.
“populace”, last para.
Now, that there is funny...expecting CONGRESS, of all entities, to do its J-O-B, let alone flex its Constitutional authority.
They COULD have done so with: ‘gay’ marriage, Roe v. Wade, etc.
Instead, they shrug their shoulders, whine, ‘We TRIED’, and beg to get re-elected to ‘try again’ but never do.
YW... Thanks for your tagline.
The 14th amendment says what the Supreme Court says it means. I will guarantee that this court will rule in favor of Anchor babies.
If we don’t hire them they will leave, NO BENEFITS, NO WORK they will go home!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.