Here is the only recent balanced essay I have found on the subject of "birthright citizenship":
But what was it that Donald Trump had done this time? What had inspired such “fear and loathing” in all those denizens of the lunatic Left ... and, yes, in the Establishment GOP (including a fatuous and obviously self-serving, utterly stupid statement by outgoing House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan)?
Very simply, the president had said he was seriously considering issuing an Executive Order to both clarify the application of the 14th Amendment and, essentially, end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens who have come across the US border, many specifically to have children who then, as if by magic, become American citizens. That is, he was going to do exactly what President Obama had once boasted he would do with a “pen and telephone,” and for which he was praised by the Mainstream media and academia for his statesmanship and his understanding of the real meaning of Constitution.
Recall that the 14th Amendment was enacted after the War Between the States to guarantee the rights of citizenship to manumitted slaves and their offspring. And, indeed, there is a serious legal question about whether the amendment itself was ever legally and legitimately ratified. But be that as it may, it has applied ever since 1868.
Here is how Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:
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.
As I watched David Crabtree in his most officiously sanctimonious manner lecture his local television audience about the president’s desire to clarify the amendment’s actual legal application, like other members of mainstream commentariat he quoted the first section thusly: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Notice the difference; notice the essential phrase he left out, either by mistake or by design: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
It’s a key phrase, critical to understanding what the authors of the amendment intended and what for nearly 100 years was accepted law up until the 1960s when leftist lawmakers got into the act simply by de facto practical applications. In other words, between the very clear and forthright intention of its authors that the 14th Amendment only applied to slaves and their offspring born in the United State who are necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and the slyly imposed practice we now have which enables a foreign woman to illegally slip across the Rio Grande and have a child who then, mutatis mutandis, becomes a citizen and an “anchor baby,” permitting usually its illegal relations to all come across—between these two interpretations and applications there is an absolute irreconcilable difference.
You can read the rest @
http://www.unz.com/article/birthright-citizenship-the-constitution-and-the-subterfuge-of-the-left/
Note well that Obama ad-Dajjal could do what Trump is now not allowed to do.
This whole issue is a red herring, and as I have written before the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key to its resolution:
https://sainthoward.blogspot.com/2016/10/us-constitution-trump-vs-hillary.html
Once again, Trump appears to be right and the left is full of crap. To them the constitution only applies when and how they want it to.
And here is another example of the anti-Trump crap:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.globalresearch.ca/no-mr-president-you-cant-change-the-constitution-by-executive-order/5658670
What the EO would do is CLARIFY what the language of the amendment means and how it can be applied. Trump certainly can do that.
Here is additional discussion of the issue:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-31.html
By the way, I do not like Ann Coulter. But this particular essay of hers appears to be correct.