Some thoughts concerning birthright citizenship in the United States

American Thinker ^ | 11/26/2024 | Zack Taylor

[SeekAndFind]

The concept establishing that a child born in the United States to illegal alien parents is at-birth a United States citizen is false. By all appearances it was at some point in our history created out of whole cloth and apparently perpetrated as truth from somewhere within the bowels of the executive branch of government, not Congress. (Neither did it originate from the Constitution, and has lasted for at least fifty years of which I am aware.)

Such a child is, most likely, a citizen of the country of which his/her parents are citizens. Certainly not the United States.

The fact of the matter is that, removing a child born in the United States to illegal alien parents with those parents is maintaining the family unit, rather than separating the family unit. This is a point that must be established as fact going forward. The issue now becomes how to establish the truth in the place of the existing false narrative or anticipated litigation.

The problem going forward will obviously come from those entities that profit financially from illegal immigration, or seek to destroy the United States. They are powerful and adept at tying up proceedings that threaten their source of revenue/power/purpose.

To understand the directions such resistance will come from, all interested parties must understand that immigration is politics and politics are immigration. Nowhere will more resistance come than from the bureaucrats heading various agencies, in and out of government, whose budgets and staffing will be threatened by this America First program to remove illegal aliens. Expect the emerging discourse to be made dramatically distorted.

The use of Title 8 Immigration and Nationality Act and the Constitution will, of course, be the basis to Tom Homan’s and President Trump’s approach to meeting the illegal alien challenge.

[SeekAndFind]

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution is the final word on the matter of birthright citizenship and the intent of its meaning is found in the Congressional debate and post-Civil War history at the time of passage.

The 14th Amendment was created exclusively for application to slaves who were then currently within the United States and their children. Holding otherwise is aiding and abetting America’s enemies in this ongoing irregular war. It is time to put America first.

[JSM_Liberty]

I suspect the founding fathers never really considered the concept of being here illegally.

You either got admitted when you arrived at a port or you were sent back where you came from.

[South Dakota]

In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court considered the status of children who are born in the United States, of fathers who owe allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States. In both cases, the Court ruled that such children are not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

[Sequoyah101]

It will have to go to the Supreme Court and can't possibly go soon enough. I somehow feel confident the ruling will be favorable when the case is considered. The USSC, in 1898 in the case of Wong Kim Ark wrongly applied the law of the 14th Amendment and it has been further mis-applied and extended to the children of illegals since then.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law banning virtually all Chinese immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the circumstances of his birth and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.[8]

Liberals and other assorted mentally ill have been around a long time.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[13Sisters76]

“Birth tourism” is a big business around the world.
Anchor babies and those rules that protect them are a complete bastardization of the 14th amendment and needs to be addressed. People are coming from all over the world to have their babies here, including many nations who are hostile to our country- like China.
We need to end this NOW.
There will be no “separation of families” as the corrupt media likes to portray it.

[Brian Griffin]

WIKI

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court landmark 1884 decision with respect to the citizenship status of Indians.

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial bounds of United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

In the Congressional debate over the proposed Amendment XIV the Amendment was meant to be broad, but to exclude Indians born on tribal land and children of persons with diplomatic immunity.

[hanamizu]

The 14th Amendment was created exclusively for application to slaves who were then currently within the United States and their children.

---

This is true. But it is somewhat undercut by the fact that in the 19th century the 14th was used to protect some of the rights of corporations, corporations being artificial ‘persons’ created by the states. When questioned on this, some of the writers of the 14th claimed that, yes, they intended to mean all ‘persons’ not just slaves.

[Tell It Right]

Literally the first sentence in the 14th Amendment:

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.

People born to citizens of other countries aren't subject to the United States. They are subject to their parents' nation. But slaves born here were subject to the U.S., so they became citizens. The same with non-slaves born to Americans, they're citizens too.

Later in Section 2 of the same 14th Amendment, we read:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

IMHO, not only does that lend credence to Trump's policy of attempting to apportion representatives and electoral college votes from the census based on the citizen count, not including immigrants. But it also backs up my interpretation from Section 1 about excluding natural birth citizenship to people of parents who aren't citizens.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Absolutely correct. It was to make the slaves and their children citizens. The 14th amendment did not even grant citizenship to the American Indians.

The operative word in the 14th amendment is “jurisdiction”.

[Diversity Is Our Weakness]

Exactly right. Kids born to illegal alien mothers are subject to the jurisdiction of their mother’s country, not america. The 14A does NOT grant them american citizenship.

It’s hard to see how the idea of birthright citizenship ever got started.

[Flavious_Maximus]

Kamala Harris is an anchor baby.

Neither of her parents were USA citizens when Harris was pooped out on American soil. She should be deported to Jamaica or India. /spit

[Brian Griffin]

This is a very detailed discussion:

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview

[lakecumberlandvet]

Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is exactly right. Why the misinterpretation has been allowed to stand for so long is a mystery to me. Congress could have and should have passed legislation long ago to clarify its meaning. The time for clarification is way past due.

[WildHighlander57]

Were there any other US Supreme Court cases about citizenship that were decided after the 1800s?

[GOPJ]

NO MORE BIRTH VACATIONS FROM CHINA...

[Myrddin]

The "jurisdiction" issue is neatly exposed in a jury summons. A non-citizen can't serve on a jury and isn't subject to any penalties for not serving. They are also not subject to a selective service draft to the military nor penalized for not "registering".

[Brian Griffin]

I think I got these quotes right:

“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.”

1866 Civil Rights Act

“The phrase was intended to exclude from its operation the children of ministers, councils, and citizens or subjects of foreign states who are born within the United States.”

Slaughterhouse

“What the phrase that we’re using means is that it’s complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Senator Trumbull

“I voted for the proposition to declare that children of all parentage whatsoever, born in California, should be regarded as citizens of the United States.”

Senator Conness

“Every citizen subject of another country while domiciled here is within the allegiance”

Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview

“domicile...one’s legal residence”

my dictionary

[Brian Griffin]

“Were there any other US Supreme Court cases about citizenship that were decided after the 1800s?”

Possibly these:

Plyler v. Doe
INS v. Rios-Pineda

I’m not a lawyer.

[Tell It Right]

The "jurisdiction" issue is neatly exposed in a jury summons. A non-citizen can't serve on a jury and isn't subject to any penalties for not serving. They are also not subject to a selective service draft to the military nor penalized for not "registering".

Thanks for pointing that out. That's very insightful in interpreting the jurisdiction element of the 14th amendment.