Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America cannot survive unlimited birthright citizenship: The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was never intended to reward transient foreigners, diplomats, or invaders who enter without consent.
American Thinker ^ | 04/15/2026 | Brian Lonergan

Posted on 04/15/2026 9:41:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

s the Supreme Court weighs challenges to President Trump’s executive order limiting automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders, America stands at a constitutional crossroads. If sanity and common sense prevail, the justices will recognize what generations of anti-borders advocates have obscured: birthright citizenship, as currently practiced, was never meant to be a global entitlement.

The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was a surgical remedy for the unique injustice inflicted on freed black slaves and their descendants — not a blank check for the world’s opportunists. Unless the Court restores its original meaning, this misapplied policy will accelerate the erosion of everything that makes America worth defending.

The historical record is unambiguous. Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment’s first sentence — “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” — was drafted to overturn the Supreme Court’s odious Dred Scott decision, which had declared Black Americans non-citizens.

The clause was drafted to protect a specific group fully subject to American sovereignty — freed slaves who had lived their entire lives under the Constitution’s authority, owed it allegiance, and possessed no competing loyalties to other countries. It was never intended to reward transient foreigners, diplomats, or invaders who enter without consent. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was the escape hatch precisely to exclude those whose primary allegiance lay elsewhere.

Yet today that escape hatch has been welded shut by judicial fiat and politicians with sinister motives. The 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision extended citizenship to the child of legal Chinese immigrants domiciled in the United States — but even that ruling hinged on lawful permanent residence and full subjection to American law, not tourist visas or illegal crossings.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; birthright; citizenship; illegals; jussoli
Message from Jim Robinson:

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

Modern birth tourism and illegal alien births represent a grotesque perversion of that narrow precedent.

Wealthy Chinese, Russian, and Middle Eastern elites pay up to $50,000 for “maternity hotel” packages that include apartments, private doctors, and airport shuttles. Their American-born infants receive passports they treat as luxury accessories, while the parents return home to enjoy the strategic option of future U.S. sponsorship, education subsidies, and welfare access.

This exploitation is a moral insult to the legacy of freed slaves.

1 posted on 04/15/2026 9:41:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If sanity and common sense prevail, the justices will recognize what generations of anti-borders advocates have obscured: birthright citizenship, as currently practiced, was never meant to be a global entitlement.

Prayers for sanity...


2 posted on 04/15/2026 9:49:40 PM PDT by GOPJ (Oil was over $100 for three and a half years of Obama’s term without daily headlines - MSM sucks...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Congress reserved their powers exclusively in section 5. Not the President, not the state legislatures, or any state executive. They have the power and need to act. I’m guessing the court will rule against the President on Section 5 and Congress will be too cowardly to do it.


3 posted on 04/15/2026 9:53:14 PM PDT by rxh4n1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Many of the Amendments to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were written in language and style that is now considered both cumbersome and unnecessarily vague.

If certitude is what we now demand, much of the Constitution itself would require a rewrite.


4 posted on 04/15/2026 10:11:11 PM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Correct!


5 posted on 04/15/2026 10:37:33 PM PDT by rktman (Destroy America from within? On hold! Enlisted USN 1967 proudly. 🚫💉! 🇮🇱🙏! Winning currently!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxh4n1

“Congress reserved their powers exclusively in section 5.”

True but there is a much more logical reason for that.

Everybody and their mother hated the decision of the Dred Scott case and everybody blamed SCOTUS for the Dred Scott decision so they wanted to exclude the courts from interpretation after they did such damage.

Which the courts, interpreted anyways and everybody ignores section 5.


6 posted on 04/15/2026 11:36:53 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. Progressivism is a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The brain-dead cannot comprehend this, ahem SCOTUS !
7 posted on 04/15/2026 11:57:22 PM PDT by A strike (miss Rush but miss CharlieKirk 10x more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson