Posted on 08/23/2019 3:26:57 PM PDT by Starman417
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was what we call an “originalist” when it came to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. He believed the only way to read the Constitution was in the context of the times when its provisions were written which formed the intent of those who wrote and later amended it. We could only interpret what they meant by reading what they wrote through the filter of the events of their day, not our day.
The issue of the 14th Amendment and whether it conveys birthright citizenship just from being born on American soil has resurfaced in the context of the current debate on immigration and border security. The answer can be found in looking at the times in which it was written and examining the actual words and thoughts of those who wrote it.
The 14h Amendment was written in 1868 after a bitter Civil War ended slavery. It was written to ensure the civil rights of freed slaves and to correct the injustices spawned by the 1857 Dred Scott decision which denied that blacks were entitled to citizenship under the U.S. Constitution. Surely it cannot be seriously argued that the authors of the 14th Amendment had in mind babies born to residents of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador who managed to sneak their pregnant bodies past a U.S. Border Patrol that didn’t exist yet in violation of immigration laws that hadn’t been written yet.
Like abortion rights, which were divined from the “penumbras” and “emanations” said to be lurking somewhere in that document, supporters of birthright citizenship say, well the language is imprecise and the authors didn’t really mean to exclude the offspring of Guatemalans born in states which didn’t exist in 1868. This is a clear violation of the Scalia originalist doctrine. The Constitution is not a living document and should be read in the context of the events of 1868, not 2019.
President Trump has once again noted the absurdity of the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment that invented the concept of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. As reported by FoxNews:
Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, President Trump again threatened to end what he called the "ridiculous" policy of birthright citizenship, which awards citizenship automatically to those born in the United States.Indeed it is according to Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky who argued that birthright citizenship supporters play word games to justify their position:"We're looking at that very seriously," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. "Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land — you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby's now a U.S. citizen. We're looking at it very, very seriously ...It’s, frankly, ridiculous."
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Only if they are gay
Amen!!
Gay homo?
Someone whose very presence here is a violation of American law should be considered an enemy and excluded from constitutional protection. The idea that 14A is meant for them seems bizarre. It’s like affording legal rights to an invading army.
Hilarious!
BRC was never meant to apply to non-citizens and it sure as hell was not supposed to apply to illegals. The Rats just pushed this idea and the hapless GOP did nothing to stop it So now it will be a uphill battle to stop it. Witness that Treasonous POS Senator from Oregon last month who escorted a pregnant Mexican across the border. He went right past a Mexican hospital to get the baby born here.
The authors of the 14th specifically said it would not apply to foreigners, ANY foreigners.
The Supreme Court has muddied the waters considerably.
The 14th had no effect on the meaning of natural born citizen.
One can only NATURALLY be a citizen when one CANNOT possibly be anything else.
Born here of citizen parents.
The children of foreign nationals are PRCISELY who the founders were excluding from being President.
What??? Said, I did once:
Don’t have a real problem with a limited form of birthright citizenship where the child is considered a citizen of the nation of the parents until such time as the child reaches maturity, returns to the US, and requests citizenship.
Like Kamala Harris? She is an anchor baby of a citizen of India and a citizen of Jamaica.
Micro Rubio was the first anchor baby to run with no American parent.
This is an absurd practice. It makes no logical sense unless one is anti USA.
Here will come some federal judge saying it’s okay.
We could pass a Constitutional amendment and a judge would step in to say it couldn’t be done.
I don’t remember what the Constitutional amendment is about being in the US illegally but it seems this judge doesn’t know it either.
our Founders very carefully defined citizenship to AVOID granting automatic citizenship to anyone whose parents were subject to the laws of other nations (such as, just saying, non-citizens of USA)
the granting of automatic citizenship to babies of illegals or tourists or student visa holders ... is wrong! and is causing America tremendous damage
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.