Unbiased America
August 20 at 2:37pm · Edited ·
(WR) ***Defending Trump!?!?***
We have been critical of Donald Trump at UA, but facts are stubborn things...
It seems that mocking and disparaging Donald Trump has become more in vogue than disseminating the truth. Well, almost anything these days is more in vogue than disseminating truth.
He is correct that birthright citizenship was never ordained with the consent of the governed.
The doctrine of "birthright citizenship" is no where to be found in the Constitution. The 13th, 14th and 15th (Civil War Amendments) were promulgated to protect the newly freed slaves and to emphasize that they are in fact CITIZENS of the United States and privy to the same natural and constitutional rights as any other citizen. It's no coincidence that the citizenship clause is within the 14th amendment that also includes the Equal Protection Clause. Prior to the amendment, if one was a citizen of a state, there were also a citizen of the US. The states decided to nationalize the issue, because they feared that some states would not recognize the newly freed slaves as citizens.
Here is the wording of the clause: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States" (emphasis mine).
It's as if the Court and politicians can elide completely any mention of jurisdiction, as if it were to say "all persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States," with one glaring problem: it doesn't.
The author of the clause--Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan--made clear in the halls of Congress its intent. He explains the part about jurisdiction was meant to exclude "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers," and that "jurisdiction" meant "full and complete jurisdiction."
This was as understood by Congress and the people as thoroughly as Howard's speeches were disseminated to the public at the time.
In 1873, five years after its passage, the U.S. Attorney General in a legal opinion explained that the term "jurisdiction" meant "absolute and complete jurisdiction" excluding aliens, even aliens born on American soil. The clause even excluded Native Americans (who, at the time a majority had little desire to be an American citizen).
The desideratum of "absolute" jurisdiction excludes any children who might owe allegiance to another sovereign (in Mexico, any children born anywhere to Mexican citizen parents are Mexican citizens by birth), such as children that are subjects of any foreign government as SCOTUS explained in 1884.
Foreign citizens cannot bestow jurisdiction on their children merely by giving birth within the geographic boundaries of the United States, only with the consent of the sovereign people can they be conferred jurisdiction.
It wasn't until 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that the "separate but equal" court (Jim Crow), held that any child born in the US of LEGAL immigrant parents with "permanent" residence in the United States are guaranteed citizenship under the 14th Amendment. A narrow exception would be for children of diplomats.
There is zero precedent for allowing citizenship to children born to illegal alien parents. Article 1, section 8, clause 4 gives plenary power to Congress over naturalization and jurisdiction. The executive and judiciary don't have the power to decide the issue.
Does this provide incentives for people to immigrate here illegally and grant their newborn automatic jurisdiction in the US?
You decide.
Note: Whether or not you or I like the law is irrelevant. These are the facts.
The only two developed countries that confer birthright citizenship are the US and Canada. They others must be run by the white patriarchy and are evil monsters.
