Being Born in the United States Can Make You a Citizen, But That Alone Doesn’t Guarantee It.
When I was in school, I remember many of my lefty teacher’s world claim that there was no right to private gun ownership, yes, they admitted that the Constitution did say that there was a “right to keep and bear arms” but that really it was meant for the national guard, not private citizens. I knew that was nonsense. Even as a kid I knew that the bill of rights was designed to limit government power, so how could the second amendment give power to the government. It couldn’t. But it was clear they claimed, it was settled, case closed. And I also remember being told that there was a right to an abortion in the Constitution. I asked where in the Constitution could I find this alleged right. I was told it was there, just not explicitly stated, rather, it was found by implication under what is called a penumbra of rights. Both these cases, especially the Roe vs. Wade decision was considered settled by the left.
Now the left has a new example of settled constitutional law, which of course is not settled. This time it deals with citizenship. They claim that there is a guaranteed birthright found in the Constitution, that is any woman in the world, and there are probably 1 billion of childbearing age, can come here give birth and their baby will be an American citizen, if that is what they want. Theoretically according to the left, a woman, while not being a citizen herself can confer citizenship to her child if she chooses. It is suicidal for any country to have such a right, but no worries, this right is unfound in the Constitution.
Yes, being born in the United States can make you a citizen, but that is not enough. Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen.
Why is the left so confident in their belief, in their interpretation. Why are they convinced that there is birthright citizenship in the Constitution? Well, they say that they have a Supreme Court decision backing their view. Well, the case that they commonly cite doesn’t prove what they claim. Indeed, it undermines their case.
No matter what the professors and the news anchors say, the 1898 case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t give birthright citizens to illegal aliens. It doesn’t give automatic birthright citizenship.
In the case Wong Kim Ark was born in San Fransico to parents who weren’t citizens. Well, his parents, and him, weren’t citizens in large part because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which discriminated against people of Chinese descent. But the case makes it clear that the parents of Wong Kim Ark were in the country legally and that they were, “Permanently domiciled” in the United States. That is, they weren’t foreign nationals, they weren’t aliens. They weren’t on a student visa, green card, or under temporary protective status. They weren’t asylum seekers or refugees. They did not sneak across the border to give birth.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal residents, not illegal aliens, or “undocumented aliens”. His parents weren’t citizens of another country, so they were not subject to the laws of another country. So, I don’t think this case will support the left’s citizenship claim, and the Trump administration is right to fight birthright citizenship even citing this case.
It’s interesting, in the decision the court also found that the children of foreign governments officials, example, embassy staff, if born here would not be US citizens. To me it doesn’t make any sense. The wife of the German Ambassador could give birth in America, and the baby would not be an American citizen, but a German woman here illegally could give birth, and the baby would be an American citizen – if that’s her preference.
Another finding in the Ark decision deals with an invading army, in such a case the children of the invaders are not US citizens. I would argue that coming into the country illegally is an invasion, and hence the baby and the mother are disqualified from becoming U.S. citizens.
The purpose for the mention of citizenship in the 14th amendment was to counter the Dred Scott decision, and to guarantee citizenship for the newly freed slaves. I would also point out that initially Indians were not considered American citizens, even though they were born here. It’s because they belonged to a tribe, which was a nation. Akin to a foreign country.
The Dred Scott decision claimed that a slave was not and could not become a citizen. Indeed, going back to roman times, a slave was not a citizen of Rome or any country.
But all the slaves were born in the United States, so mentioning being born in the United States was a way of including the freed slaves in citizenship. The case of a freed slave is fundamentally different from today’s cases. The freed slave was never a citizen of another country. A woman from Honduras for example, who while here illegally gives birth to a baby is a citizen of Honduras, not the United States.
I am happy to see President Trump fighting the left’s extra Constitutional birthright citizenship. I think it is great to push back. We should not just accept the left’s settled theories. Whether the theory is global warming, or their claim that standing six feet apart slows the spread of covid, the rich don’t pay their fair share in taxes, Rachel Levine is a woman, Joe Biden is compos mentis, or Birthright citizenship.
Fight them on every front, all the time.
David Shephard is the author of two books. Elections Have Consequences, A Cautionary Tale.
Norton’s Choice: An Inside Politics Exposé: Shephard, David: 9781892538802: Amazon.com: Books14
12 comments
This is the law for the guy who continually posts under real peoples names:
In Virginia, using someone else’s identity to post online is considered “identity theft” under Virginia Code § 18.2-186.3,
Richard Dawson is right. Eliminating birthright citizenship cannot be done via executive order. It can clearly be done via a statute as Congress has complete power over immigration. The 14th amendment does not trump the ability of the Congress to define citizenship.
This needs to done in the context of completely overhauling the immigration laws to eliminate chain migration and make the system merit based. This is common in the world. Look at New Zealand… you have to have a skill that they need. Also the immigration legal system needs to be reformed.
The guy impersonating real people… Pete Hegseth… should understand that his Anne Frank… if deported or more accurately under the legal term of art, removed, gets a chance at a number of legal processes here in the USA.
Pete… Anne can apply for asylum at a CIS Asylum Office… if denied… she gets a hearing before an immigration judge. Then if she loses there, she can appeal her case at the BIA… If that doesn’t work she can appeal to the federal circuit…
This process Pete goes on for YEARS… a minimum of five or so…
And Pete… this applies to people with criminal records.
Your sanctuary city Pete is harboring people who are encountered by the police. Take Fairfax county, where hate has no home… your sanctuary city police force arrests someone for a committing a potential crime Pete… Fairfax will not cooperate with ICE to discover the identity of a potential illegal nor turn him over once convicted of a crime…
These hombres are no Anne Frank Pendejo… many have some nasty criminal records here and abroad.
But your stupid county instead of cooperating and removing these turds from the jurisdiction just foists them on the rest of the state and country…
Why do you like heinous criminals…drug gangs etc like MS 13 Pete?
So Pete you are so free from the ravages of intelligence that it is hardly worth replying to you..
Somewhere in the US there’s a Hispanic Anne Frank hiding in an attic, keeping a diary that will be discovered after she dies in a concentration camp.
Are you really that stupid? You wrote:
They claim that there is a guaranteed birthright found in the Constitution, that is any woman in the world, and there are probably 1 billion of childbearing age, can come here give birth and their baby will be an American citizen, if that is what they want.
Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
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.
Got that? 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.
As he mentioned, this amendment was intended to apply to freed slaves… as you would like to say that the 2nd amendment pertained only to militias.. But in this case that is the historical record and Congressional intent.
However… Congress has the power to define citizenship, so if it has any guts and it doesn’t The GOP can draft a bill defining citizenship and eliminating birthright versions
Then you Democrat types can tell everyone how much you love illegal aliens that you want it to continue via birthright citizenship…
You just lost an election over immigration. Go ahead and stick your political necks out.
There’s a whole lot of discussion concerning the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of”. One side will defend the idea that since the mothers are physically here, they are subject to the jurisdiction. Others will argue that only children born to citizens of the US whether natural born or naturalized are automatically citizens at birth. Meaning that women who are, for example, Chinese citizens, are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state”, usually CA for the birther tourism industry that has grown up. This will wind up in SCOTUS at some point.
Birthright citizenship: Trump owns several condo buildings in/around Palm Beach, Florida. Most of the units are owned by Russians, Saudis, and Chinese. Locals refer to the places as “Little Russia”. They are known because the daughters, nieces, etc. of the Russian, Chinese, Saudi owners come, give birth, stay a few months to get their documentation, then go home. He will never outlaw it because (1) Will require Constitutional amendment, and, (2) his Russian, Saudi, and Chinese masters won’t allow it.
Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are holding a retreat at Trump’s Doral golf resort, where they will pay him over $1 million for accommodations, meals, etc. You hypocrites would be raising hell if it were Joe Biden doing this.
Meanwhile, Trump has ordered federal workers back to the office while he’s at Doral for a week of golf.
You cannot write a comment using a real persons name. This is illegal. Jeanine, you need to ban this person. I suspect it is the same person who has done this over and over.
To those of you who swallow The Bull Elephant’s crap and who still consider me “divisive,” let me make you a deal:
I’ll stop calling you liars when you stop spreading false information and idiotic conspiracies.
I’ll stop calling you hypocrites when you start holding yourselves to the same standards you hold for everyone else.
I’ll stop calling you cruel when you stop electing people on the promise that they’ll hurt the vulnerable.
I’ll stop calling you cowards if you just once stand on principle instead of being unquestioningly obedient to authority figures who do nothing to deserve it.
And I’ll stop implying you’re stupid if you quit saying profoundly stupid things.
Fair?
In this instance I do not give a rat’s bottom about your opinions. This is about the fact that it is illegal to use a real identity and post on the internet.
You can use OrangemanBad as your name… You can use Libtard Warrior.. but you cannot post under the name of a real person. You have done this over and over and in the spirit of your people prosecuting everyone it can…
Jeanine should turn you over to the authorities.
I cannot use a real person’s name?
So tell that to RICHARD CRONAGLE or JOHN MASSOUD.
Or are you a typical MAGAt who thinks the rules apply to everyone else?
Speaking of hypocrisy! Where was your outrage when China Jo Xi Den was 1) spending 40% of his reign on “vacation “ or 2) receiving millions of dollars from his Chinese masters. We get it you hate the fact that your communist party members are not in control. Get used to it. The grown ups are in control.