Media Outlets [wrongly] Claim Constitutional Amendment Needed to Cease “Birthright Citizenship”

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 09 Dec 2024 | Sharon Rondeau

[CDR Kerchner]

(Dec. 9, 2024) — On Sunday’s “The Big Weekend Show” on the Fox News Channel at 7:00 p.m. EST, co-hosts Dr. Nicole Saphier, Anita Vogel, Jason Chaffetz and Johnny Joey Jones reacted to President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s lengthy interview with Kristen Welker of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” particularly regarding his comments on abolishing the automatic awarding of U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

The decades-long practice appears to have arisen from the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868, the pertinent section of which reads:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

During last night’s broadcast, the Fox News chyron read, “Trump Considers Changing 14th Amendment.”

Also citing Trump’s interview with Welker, local “Fox61” in Hartford, CT reported during its 10:00 p.m. Sunday news hour that an amendment would be required to alter “birthright citizenship.”

Neither outlet referenced legal opinions supporting or opposing their claim.

[CDR Kerchner]

This is a must read news story about a citizenship subject that must be addressed given we now may have as many as 30,000,000 illegal aliens in the USA, i.e., the subject of Birthright Citizenship eligibility, which has been abused for a long time (deliberately in my opinion) by the main stream media and mass cultural influencers in saying who is one and ignoring or misquoting relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases and omitting key terms and fact findings in Constitutional Amendments and U.S. Supreme Court decision holdings on the subject.

[roadcat]

14th Amendment applied to freed slaves in the USA, long subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Born and naturalized in the USA. Later on, it was mis-interpreted to cover an Asian anchor baby and then others who were foreigners subject to other nations. If people are foreigners subject to another nation’s rule, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. And so it goes with their anchor baby.

[Mr. K]

I wish his inauguration speech would be nothing but orders.

“I hereby issue the following executive orders to be carried out immediately...”

[oldbill]

Wrong.
Section V of Amendment 14 empowers Congress to pass legislation which could define the meaning of “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

[Pontiac]

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

It is also the notion on which the Democrats have built their plan to erect a permanent House majority.

Fill the country with enough foreign nationals concentrated in Democrat strongholds and they can use apportionment to take and hold the House of Representatives.

Add to that they have a good chance of also taking the Presidency permanently because they will also have control of the states with the majority of the Electoral College votes.

Talking of such things as killing birthright citizenship, Trump is painting that target on his back Bolder than it already was.

[taxcontrol]

There is the force of law (Congress) and the force of the courts (rulings)

Yes, Congress can change the law -but- a constitutional amendment would be necessary to FORCE the courts to accept a different interpretation.

[Vendome]

Jubject to the jurisdiction

Kim vs Ark

Etc

I detailed this 20 years ago

[eyeamok]

BS

“AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF”

[FreedomPoster]

I’d love to see them bring in a desk right after the swearing in, then have Trump sign about 8 dozen EOs to kick things off right and set the tone.

[Fungi]

Please explain “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

[Chewbarkah]

“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.”

The 14th Amendment connects the two elements with “and”, leaving no doubt that both are required.

So if a citizen of another country is present in the US illegally, can that person be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”? Does anyone actually argue that such persons are “subject to the jurisdiction”? Or do they just pretend the jurisdiction requirement isn’t there?

Can Trump have the Solicitor General of the US ask the SCOTUS for an advisory opinion on this issue? That would seem a reasonable first step.

[nopardons]

BTTt

[CDR Kerchner]

A key part of the fact finding that is conveniently ignored by many in the media and by other cultural influencers, besides ignoring the clause in the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, is that the parents of Wong Kim Ark were legally permanently domiciled residents of the United States when their son Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA. The mainstream media and the far-lefty pundits always seem to leave out that key clause when quoting the 14th Amendment (as the interviewer of Donald Trump did) and that key fact of being permanently legally domiciled in the USA, in that 1898 SCOTUS case and decision and holding, when they say and promote the belief that anyone born in the USA in any way and under any circumstances, such as via people who become parents here while here on a student VISA, as tourists, or illegal migrant aliens invaders, that their child when born here is automatically a U.S. Citizen. There is no U.S. Supreme Court decision that so held, and Trump via executive order, can demand that the current U.S. Citizenship laws and Supreme Court decisions be correctly enforced.

[SuperLuminal]

More proof that, when the car plunged off the causeway, the wrong passenger drowned!

[CDR Kerchner]

Read the full article as it is fully and correctly explained therein.

[erkelly]

Many people, unfortunately, do not understand what jurisdiction means.

[arthurus]

....and subject to the jurisdiction of

That part of it is never mentioned by those who claim the Constitution grants citizenship to the progeny of birth tourists.

[TigersEye]

Mockingbird propaganda outlets say what?!

[CDR Kerchner]

Since in the 14th Amendment one is being granted entry into the political community of Citizens, in that clause it means the full political jurisdiction. Others in Congress back when the 14th Amendment was written discussed have said the same. The progressive movement of the 20th century has really misinterpreted that term in the 14th Amendment to further their political power agenda. Even back in the 19th century there was political motivations to drive the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the key term therein, “off the rails”. See this article for some more discussion of how things were moved to liberalize the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to a point it was never intended to address: How “Birthright Citizen” Went Off the Rails! — The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898: States’ Rights, The Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent | by Bernadette Meyler | Cornell Law School: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2022/03/10/the-gestation-of-birthright-citizenship-1868-1898-by-bernadette-meyler-cornell-law-school/

[21twelve]

Biden signed 17 EO’s the first day. Six or seven of them related to illegal aliens.