Posted on 07/13/2026 10:44:56 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Rush Limbaugh: What the 14th Amendment ACTUALLY Says About Birthright Citizenship
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
The description says that this is the Oct 30, 2018 show.
Uh oh in agreement basically with what Clarence Thomas said recently, Rush used the dreaded term “original intent” aka originalism in reference to the 14th Amendment.
I know you guys will get here anyways so friendly ping.
The 14th is nothing but a black people’s aka former slaves amendment. That’s all it is and nothing more. It is a very narrow amendment.
I normally blame the judges for being liars, but Rush blames Ted Kennedy. That’s also a fairly wise target for scorn.
They know perfectly well that the amendment was not written with the children of illegal immigrants in mind, but they (and most of our Supreme Court justices) don't seem to care.
My liberal-leaning daughter, who objected to Rush and still doesn’t agree with him on many issues - said she misses Rush. She admits she still disagrees with him on a number of issues, “But at least you knew he was telling you what he honestly believed. Hard to find that anymore!”
The only thing that matters about the 14A, is what the ratifiers thoght it meant. And the ratifiers thought it was a Civil War Reconstruction Amendment to free Negro slaves and give them full citizenship. Period. Nothing else.
What you aren't grasping is that it does not specifically say that. If you read *THE WORDS* it doesn't apply to just black slaves. It applies to *everyone* except Indians.
The anal retentive people in the legal community believe a law has to be interpreted strictly by the words. No mulligans allowed for saying "that's not what we meant!"
The court's position is *Say what you mean*, because we will interpret it according to what you said.
This wouldn't have happened if the Southern states had been allowed to vote on it.
True.
“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.’ - Senator Jacob Howard (Author of the Fourteenth Amendment)
A similar thing was said about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act).
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” - Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-MA).
And yet, here we are...
Politicians lie.
“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.”
Many babies of PRC moms never reside in any state. Mere popping out in the USA is insufficient.
The “and” is important. It means that the clause is merely retroactive as of the date of ratification.
born - past tense
naturalized - past tense
are - present (time of ratification [1868]) tense
******
Shall is normally used in the Constitution for the future tense.
Amendment X uses “are reserved”.
Reserve means “to keep back or save for future or special use”
The citizenship clause is at most a one-time (1868) grant.
******
The fact that the writers didn’t use the oft used Constitutional word “shall” matters. It was the obvious choice. It also would have accomplished what they undoubtedly intended.
******
Also consider the citizenship of babies born in the USA with parents having citizenship from the country of India.
The babies can get Indian citizenship upon application, but they are not born with it.
Why does India have such a system? Probably so that babies of citizens of India don’t run afoul of the complete jurisdiction requirement.
******
“If birth in the US alone would constitute US citizenship (particularly following Wong Kim Ark of 1898), then there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) of 1924.”
It would be silly to say that a baby of Mexican Apaches if popped out in hospital room in El Paso would be an American citizen under Amendment XIV but a baby of American Apaches if popped out in the adjoining hospital room would not.
Bingo!
That is quite important and is consistent with the well-established legal principal used by courts to resolve interpretation of ambiguous contract terms. The authors of the amendment made the meaning very clear to the Congress prior to passage.
Perhaps in this case, unfortunately, one should say "used by the lower courts".
Ok. We’ve been here before. I’m moving on.
Just pointing out, this is the originalist position. We all know because the authors were blindingly clear. As a slavery amendment, this is not badly worded.
As a Santa Claus amendment though, that is when it becomes badly worded. Which you agree with, BTW. You believe the 14th is the Santa Claus amendment.
Except for the fact it doesn't mention "slaves" or "slavery", and therefore can be read by anal retentive courts to mean "everybody."
“If birth in the US alone would constitute US citizenship (particularly following Wong Kim Ark of 1898), then there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) of 1924.”
Agreed.
But on the same note, the Snyder Act proves that Section V of 14A has teeth.
Congress can indeed solve this problem.
Now, they will not!!! Congress is refusing and will refuse.
But they do have the power to do so constitutionally.
I would think the rule about Foreign Diplomats posted in the US and having a child, but not granting US citizenship to it, would be a strong case against birthright citizenship. It’s the same damn thing.
Problem is, it doesn’t SAY IT in black and white.
The correct application of the US Constitution is as written and where unclear, origially understood and intended.
The supporting writings do.
Unfortunately they never realized 160 years later people would be too stupid to read.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
—In 1866 - 1868 we weren’t worried about millions of illegals coming here, squatting, and squeezing a baby out.
—In 1866 - 1868, you didn’t have millions of Middle Easterners, Afghans, Pakistani’s, Muslims from India, North Africans that essentially hate this place from an ideological perspective, get a passport because of this.
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.