Posted on 08/08/2025 5:08:47 AM PDT by MtnClimber
I have been getting just enough email about “birthright citizenship” to suggest that there are some key misunderstandings about the concept and the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment to make one more exploration of the idea worthwhile. So as your resident “splainer,” I’ll try to ‘splain it for you.
The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. It was the final product of a process that Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull began in 1866. His Civil Rights Act of 1866 stated that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power…are hereby declared citizens of the United States…”
President Andrew Johnson didn’t like the bill, so he vetoed it, but Congress overrode his veto. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the language very slightly to “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but it kept that all-important conjunction, which I’ve highlighted.
That three-letter word means that there are two (another three-letter word) conditions that have to be met. They aren’t the same thing. That three-letter conjunction is the source of all the legal arguments. So that you can clearly understand it, let’s look at a unanimous Second Amendment decision called Caetano v. Massachusetts.
The Caetano case dealt with a lady who protected herself from an abusive boyfriend by acquiring a stun gun (similar to a Taser). The Supreme Court ruled that for Massachusetts to ban her stun gun, it had to be both dangerous and unusual. There’s that little three-letter “and” word again.
The state could ban it only if both conditions were met. Matching one wasn’t enough. If it was unusual but not dangerous, sorry, Charlie. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Your statute goes directly to Second Amendment jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
![]() |
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“...but will accept citizenship of illegals born here if parents show evidence of having worked here.”
Not the merest hint of that in the 14th amendment.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
“That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding....”
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866
““Subject to the jurisdiction” is simply meant to exclude a very narrow set of people, such as children of foreign diplomats.”
Not the merest hint of that in the 14th amendment.
I’m also looking at over a century of legal decisions that interpret the Constitution.
I could explain it in more detail, but my point is that too much time is spent on these arguments that are bound to go nowhere. This administration has a tendency to lose focus.
Sorry you failed your studies. Subject to the Jurisdiction means that they could be claimed as a citizen of another country. If mom and dad are both Mexican citizens, then the baby can be Mexican. In some countries, if dad is a citizen, the baby can automatically become a citizen.
“are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”
The “and” is important.
At 6:00am, Invader Baby was born.
At 6:10am, Invader Baby died.
Invader Baby never resided in any state of the USA.
At 7:00am, Baby LA was born to Shanghai Momma
a few days later, Baby LA & Shanghai Momma fly to a residence in China.
Even years later, Baby LA has never resided in any state of the USA.
“and of the state wherein they reside” implies that the effect of the Amendment was meant to be limited to those persons then alive at the time of its ratification.
Suggest ignoring that poster. He’s been busted multiple time for making it personal.
No other country on the planet accepts that anybody born there is automatically a citizen. You’re completely wrong
“I’m also looking at over a century of legal decisions that interpret the Constitution.”
I am also looking at over a century of legal decisions that interpret the Constitution, plus the writings of the ones who wrote the amendments.
This argument alone won’t do the job. Legislative history and intent must be considered. Quite simply, the amendment was intended for freed slaves, not for granting citizationship to children of invaders or to create a birth tourism industry.
Did you know one and only one person is identified as a Natural Born Citizen?
I wish people here would quit labeling people with terms like NBC.
“jurisdiction”
If I was visiting Caracas and was pulled off the street and into Maduro’s army, the United States would be entitled to use force to free me.
If Jose was born 20 years ago to a Venezuelan mother & father in NYC and was visiting Caracas yesterday and was pulled off the street and into Maduro’s army, the United States would not be entitled to use force to free Jose.
“Citizenship by birth
A child born in Venezuela regardless of the nationality or status of the parents.
A child born outside Venezuela to parents who are both Venezuelans by birth....”
“Venezuelans who possess dual citizenship have the same rights and duties as Venezuelans who do not possess dual citizenship.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_nationality_law
Well scholar of the Constitution, read the debates on the 14th amendment, and you will discover that your view is incorrect.
John Bingham (who's quote I use in my tagline) is quite clear that children born of citizens of foreign countries, are *NOT* citizens.
And while we are at it, any 14th amendment "citizen" is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.
Don't believe me? The framers of the 14th amendment said over and over again that the 14th amendment is naturalization.
Let us take them at their word and ignore what obnoxious courts claim.
I don't know, but citizenship should be limited to those born of a mother in the country legally at least.
And therein lies your problem.
Illegal aliens are not subjects, they are trespassers. They are subjects of the countries from where they came. Their children are automatically subjects of their parents country and not eligible for citizenship of the country that they are trespassing.
No other country grants citizenship to the children of invaders. This was never the intention of the drafters of the 14th amendment.
Lol
Babies born in the USA of to fnon citizen parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the nations of their parents and thus are subject to a foreicn power.
Lol
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.