Left’s and Rhino’s Outrage Over Trump’s Birthright Comments
One of the large problems in the US is that people from Mexico, from Eastern Europe and Russia, from China, come to America to give birth, thus ensuring their children citizenship in the US, then leave in about a month when their child’s passport arrives. Now, none of this is illegal, in fact, the US aids in this thus enabling both anchor babies and others to come across that have no intent on living here, or have any allegiance to the US to be citizens. The 14th Amendment was never intended to give anyone birthright citizenship.
Trump yesterday said he was going to look at what he could do with an executive order to stop this. The first thing we need to look at is can he use an executive order to halt this practice? I seriously doubt it, but this has never come up before the court and would make the court make a ruling on it. This is not a bad thing, the courts could then further define the 14th Amendment and let us know what their authors of the amendment’s intentions were when they crafted it.
One of the advantages now is we have a court with 3 justices that are constitutionalist, they look at the intent of the authors, and go from there, so what was the intent?
To bring up the birthright issue we need to look at the 14th Amendment, it states:
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.
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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
If you look at when the 14th Amendment was created the South had lost the civil war, they were then after reunification saying the Dread Scott decision by the high court prevented any African American from obtaining citizenship. This was known as the Scott vs Sandford case, the case was taken after Sandford had purchased Scott in Missouri, brought him to Minnesota as a slave, Minnesota had recently voted to be a slave-free state, thus Dread Scott sued for his freedom. In the lower courts, they did approve of Dread Scott’s court case, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court that ruled:
” . . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . .” — Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking for the majority
When the South lost the civil war, they were then challenging the right of African American ex-slaves to receive citizenship and protection under the constitution due to the Dread Scott case, the very case they cited when ceding from the US, Congress to remedy this added the 14th amendment, this was then put in place to grant slaves that were freed the right to become slaves, the framers in Congress specifically stated this was never intended to make this an issue of birthright citizenship, but the Democrats ran with this anyhow.
What is shown here, the author of the bill, as stated on the Senate floor, was never intended for foreigners or aliens to give their babies the right to be citizens, it was specifically stated as such.
What is more amazing, you have people like Kasich who were running for president, had no clue of the history of the constitution, saying that we should allow this birthright citizenship to continue. And why does he say that? He claims G-d told him so, since when did G-d become involved in the constitution and politics, never heard anything so ignorant in my life. We are told we should obey the law of the land, not change them according to our “feelings”. Maybe a perfect reason why I would never give this man my vote, if he has no clue about the constitution, then how can he protect and preserve it?
One of the things the people that support birthright citizenship miss out is the second part of the first sentence, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, this means if you are born here, and are subject only to the jurisdiction of the US, then you have a right to citizenship, this is why they don’t give the children of diplomats citizenship, we know they are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the country they are representing.
It should be the same thing with birthright visa’s, people come here, have a baby, then go back to their host country. One needs to ask them, of what country are they and their children held under the subject of? We know it is the country they reside in, so why is this part ignored?
I think an executive, order will fail in the court of law, but if the White House challenges this up to the Supreme Court, and then forces a ruling on the amendment, which has never been done, at least then the court would give a definition of the so as to stop the uncertainty of the case. I think if it does go to court, we have Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito would rule on what the founders intended, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg would rule by what the left wants it to stay as, this leaves the court split with Roberts making the final decision, it would be interesting since no one knows how he will rule, he has shown he will jump to either side without warning.
If you could get a ruling from the court, or better yet, see one or two, Breyer and Ginsburg out due to health or unseated due to natural causes, the complexity of the court would change drastically and such a finding would most likely favor what Trump wishes, to stop birthright citizenship, this would be a great thing.