Our S.C. has decided to review Trump’s birthright citizenship order. So, let us follow the rules.

So what? It's complete bullshit to consider for one second the US does not have complete jurisdiction/authority over every person within its borders apart from diplomatic exemptions.

We are talking about the meaning of ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . " as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
 
So what? It's complete bullshit to consider for one second the US does not have complete jurisdiction/authority over every person within its borders apart from diplomatic exemptions.

Otherwise they can disobey your laws without penalty. Like the diplomats.
We don’t have political jurisdiction over them.
 

Why Trump’s birthright citizenship Executive Order is constitutional​


Under the 14th Amendment’s, Section 5, Congress has exclusive power to enforce its provisions by “appropriate legislation” and did so under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. As we speak, there is no S.C. Case, or Act of Congress by which citizenship is recognized for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil. Doing so is mere unwritten federal policy.


Under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden with his disastrous and destructive open border policy.


This policy making authority of our President, is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy, as determined by the people through elections.


Since our Constitution does not grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, or does a Supreme Court case exist in which this question was explicitly presented to our Supreme Court for consideration and affirmed such citizenship, and that mere federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.


Our S.C. does not have to get involved, nor should it! It should only confirm, elections have consequences, and our President has power to change existing public policy.

Elections have consequences!



JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story
 
Numerous groups of people have become citizens since the 14th. The one thing they all have in common was it was accomplished through an act of Congress. Barring an act of Congress the children of illegal aliens are not entitled to citizenship.
 
See: Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

"In an order released Friday afternoon, the justices said they would take up for review Trump v. Barbara, a case originally brought in a federal court in New Hampshire by a group of people whose children could be affected by the order. The Justice Department filed petitions to the high court to hear the Barbara case and Trump v. Washington, a challenge brought by Democrat-led states, in September, arguing the justices should rule on the legality of the order."

Well, since our Supreme Court has apparently decided to take up the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it relates to bestowing United States citizenship, let us all keep in mind the rules for doing so, as stated by our very own Supreme Court:

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

This very procedure was also summarized in a United States Senate Report as follows:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." __ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Finally, let me personally point out a self-evident truth: Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution:



“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”


Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment 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.

So, exactly what did the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, and those who ratified it, mean by its carefully stated wording, “. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .”? An excellent source, with a wealth of documentation on this very subject is SUBJECT TO THE [COMPLETE] JURISDICTION THEREOF: SALVAGING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE Texas Review of Law & Politics, by AMY SWEARER


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void." _ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

The author of the amendment was asked it the children of people here illegally would be American citizen. He stated that they would be. That is the original intent.,
 
Technically, the "birthright citizenship" was created for former slaves after the Civil War. It wasn't meant to mean anyone illegally sneaking into the US and giving birth just to get citizenship.
If the Supreme Court erringly determines that the "birthright citizenship" in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to whoever is born in the US by illegal migrants, then the child should be kept in the US and the illegal migrant mother thrown out, never to return.

That is a lie. The author of the amendment was asked if it applied to illegals. Her stated that it would. I have a better idea. Keep the mother and throw out the MGA trash like you.
 
The author of the amendment was asked it the children of people here illegally would be American citizen. He stated that they would be. That is the original intent.,

Provide a link and the quote you are referring to from the debates of the 39th Congress. I don't recall any such statement being made.
 
Last edited:
It is not a US citizen.
👍

According 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

So, the fact is, if a baby is born on American soil and is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, the baby does not then automatically obtain U.S. citizenship. This, in fact is substantiated by reviewing the debates of the 39th Congress which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

In discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. see Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. Apparently, unwritten policy, and only unwritten policy, now recognizes the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national, born on American soil, is recognized as a citizens of the United States upon birth. And as it turns out, President Trump, under his Article 2 powers, may lawfully change existing unwritten policy concerning anchor babies to his Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship"

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
 
15th post
They advertise pregnancy tourism in Russia and China, touting giving birth in America in order to have a citizen child and be able to receive welfare benefits, which many do. The whole concept of arbitrarily giving citizenship to illegal aliens' children is total bullshit.
 
Technically, the "birthright citizenship" was created for former slaves after the Civil War. It wasn't meant to mean anyone illegally sneaking into the US and giving birth just to get citizenship.
If the Supreme Court erringly determines that the "birthright citizenship" in the Fourteenth Amendment applies to whoever is born in the US by illegal migrants, then the child should be kept in the US and the illegal migrant mother thrown out, never to return.
That is just ******* brilliant!!. Do you know nothing about child development and parental bonding. You proposal is beyong cruel.
 
Back
Top Bottom