Posted on 01/30/2025 8:58:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I was having lunch with some conservative gal pals yesterday, and the subject got around to birthright citizenship. I was quickly able to sum up the arguments in favor of Donald Trump’s position (many of which have been made on this site), so I thought I’d give you a handy-dandy guide to these arguments.
The predicate for this discussion, of course, is this clause from 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. (Emphasis mine.)
One. English common law, which underpins American law, held that an invader’s children are not citizens. To the extent that the illegal aliens in America have not entered through invitation or by any legal process, they are foreign invaders. Therefore, as a matter of ancient legal principles, they do not get to complete the process of conquest by having their children automatically become citizens with the right to affect elections or claim benefits.
Image made using AI.
Two. Illegal aliens are not people who “reside” in the United States of America. Residence doesn’t simply mean that you are currently in a place. For example, when I’m sitting in an airport waiting to board a plane, I do not “reside” in the airport. “Residence” has a legal meaning that, again, is based upon whether you are a legally recognized occupant of American soil (e.g., a green card holder, an acknowledged refugee or asylee, someone with temporary protected status, etc.) or an invader.
Three. The 14th Amendment does not simply say that to be “born” in America is sufficient. Instead, the person must also be subject to American jurisdiction, which is something different from being obligated to obey American laws...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
BFL...thanks for posting!
Karl Denninger (The Market Ticker) weighs in.
Language.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=252738
And the author of the 14th amendment also explained its meaning - so anyone claiming the 14th extends citizenship to the babies dropped here by illegals or tourists doesn’t want to know. It’s not like it’s a secret or hidden.
There is also the fact that the US Constitution is not a spell book full of magical incantations.
The 14th Amendment was obviously written to make human slaves into American citizens at the end of the American Civil War - at least this clause was. It takes great pains, with brevity, to preserve the freedoms (such as they were) of the existing Indian nations.
It has no other purpose and could not predict the future any better than Nostradamus could. Any honest attempt to give it current meaning would be based on its written intent.
One could ask whether the R's indeed were in control even with numerical superiority.
Rs were just acting as the right flank of the Deep State.
Excellent and Intelligent explanation!
Reason magazine had a long article attepting to explain why Trump’s action was “unconstitutional”.
Reason’s authors are generally pretty smart folks, but when they err they err big time and mislead their readers.
They need to be reminded that “judicial precedent” is not the same as “the Constitution”.
If “judicial precedent” was the equivalent of “the Constitution”, the Dredd Scott and Roe V Wade decisions would still be the “Constitutional” law of the land. The errors of Dredd Scott and Roe V Wade were corrected, and a more true reading of the Constitution restored. The same could happen concerning “Birth Right” citizenship.
What the authors at reason failed to acknowledge is (a) judicial precedents can be repealed by new Supreme Court rulings, as Presidents themselves, like the Supreme Court justices, take an oath of office to “defend the Constitution of the United States”, not “judicial precedent” and with that oath MUST, in loyalty to it, make judgements about the Constitutionality of actions, which, legitimately, can include, rejecting a Supreme Court precdedent as the final word. There is NOTHING “unconstitu0tional” about generating a new case to test, again, any prior court “precedent”.
This whole Illegal Immigration issue is why GWB MUST be considered a Traitor to his country!
***
Those R’s have been representing someone other than US.
Well, one thing that will get argued about is at what time does the bun in the oven become a human and what is it when it crosses the border while still in the oven or is it anything at all? Clearly it is but to some it isn’t and it will become whatever is convenient for those arguing in favor of dropping a citizen no matter what the status of the container is. The whole of the subject will get twisted and turned until it is unrecognizable.
The left has conveniently highjacked it and re worded for thier own purpose and agenda and so their dummies could understand the lies much like
women’s health initiative AKA abortion
banning books AKA adult content books where minors are present
Everyone was saying that Biden was letting 10’s of millions of illegal aliens to vote in the election weren’t completely wrong.
Biden let them in to have their future children vote in the elections as “birthright” citizens.
“ One could ask whether the R’s indeed were in control even with numerical superiority.”
I’m gonna guess that none of the R Establishment had the stomach for the firestorm that would be triggered by telling illegal aliens that their supposed “anchor babies” are citizens, and that the whole family faces deportation, even those who have been here 40 years.
A quick example is if you’re a civilian but are on a military base that does not make you subject to the UCMJ or even a member of the military. Therefore, you are not subject to it jurisdiction
Ironically Jesse Jackson said it best, “stay out of the bushes”.
I would say this may be closer to the truth then when the Democrat blamed every crisis on racism and/or climate change
The assertion that Section 1 allows Birthright Citizenship or that Section 3 prevents Donald Trump from holding office needs a full understanding of Section 5. Where is the legislation that the new power of legislation granted Congress?
We can have opinions but only the Supreme Court decision sticks. Do all you can to get this issue before the Supreme Court?
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.