The definitive guide to the totally misrepresented “birthright citizen” lie
This one is starting to get on my nerves. Even though the 14th Amendment quite clear in its meaning and the US Supreme Court has verified the fact multiple times, many still refuse to acknowledge the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Amendment. If you are born to illegal alien parents, you are not a citizen of the United States.
Hat tip to Mark Levin who points us to an article by Dr. John Eastman over at the Daily Caller. Click on the link and read the entire post, it’s good information.
The text of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause provides 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.” That text has two requirements: 1) Birth on U.S. soil; and 2) Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.
There are two Supreme Court rulings which knock out the current argument that if you’re simply born here, you’re a citizen.
In The Slaughter-House Cases, which were decided in 1872, the Court noted (albeit in dicta) that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to the jurisdiction,’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Court was unanimous on this point.
That interpretation was also the Supreme Court’s holding in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins, in which a Native American who had been born on a reservation within the United States and later renounced his tribal allegiance claimed the benefits of birthright citizenship because he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States through his tribe, which was a dependent sovereign. The Court rejected the claim, holding that the Citizenship Clause required that one be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Eastman’s retort is in response to an opinion piece by Linda Chavez, in which she sites one Supreme Court ruling – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark – that is not an apples to apples comparison. Eastman’s article and reference to two Supreme Court rulings are most definatley more closely aligned to the situation the United States find’s itself in today. Read both posts and come to your own conclusion.
Just “because we the USA has been granting birthright citizenship for decades” is not an argument.
Not at all am I suggesting the 14th Amendment needs to be recast, rather we should just follow the rule of law and the intent of the amendment; even though it seems to have been ignored for decades.
Disclaimer on the next part … nothing against Mexicans got it?
If the open border Mexican population in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, or owe direct and immediate allegiance to Mexico, why are they parading around with the Mexican flag and flying that flag at a post office in California? Yes, I know, it’s a story from 2006 … but don’t tell me the illegal aliens – not just from Mexico – are here and don’t owe complete allegiance to their home countries.
Just look at the news stories from “immigration” rallies during the past year. It’s not about immigration and living the American dream – it’s about open borders and complete destruction of American culture.
Let me make myself perfectly clear. I’m all for legal immigration (including assimilation to USA culture), even temporary work visa programs that follow current law. We may even need to expand those programs to allow for more legal immigration and foreign workers, but for damn sure the federal government best do something about our porous border before doing so.
40 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
I'm from an immigrant family- and I guarantee that illegals are not doe eyed saints worthy of white guilt. A cousin of mine stole my identity; he had a passport, commercial driver's license, violations all around the USA, a passport, earnings under my SSN, held property as me… My CT driver's license was suspended for almost 2 mos, I could have lost my job, I was audited by states I've never lived in, had debt collectors pursuing me for substantial medical bills that were not my own, my personal checks were taboo, I had trouble getting a mortgage, I faced arrest while driving on my suspended CT license or unknown wants and warrants for my cousin, faced possible loss of job opportunities, and there are still surprises after 20 years!!! I hope God has a special place in the fires of hell for illegal immigrants!
I have known illegal immigrants from various countries, Peru, Colombia, Mexico etc. and many of them are the nicest people I have ever known. Because your cousin stole your identity you would like to send all of them to the fires of hell? Don't you think thats just a little extreme.
On the other hand, I am absolutely sure there are literally billions of nice people in countries all over the world that want to come here. Isn't it "racist" to only allow the ones that can hike over the border from Mexico and Central America stay, live and work here? Won' t that be the next argument? If we let one group in, aren't the rest being discriminated against?
Slippery slope, meet the Teflon shoes of unintended, but quite predictable, consequences….
JollyRoger would prefer they burn in hell never mind allowing them to live here. I have also known illegal immigrants from Poland, Romania etc, but nobody seems to mind, I wonder why? Maybe they have assimilated into USA culture.
Wow Scottm…you sure know a lot of illegal immigrants…Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Poland, Romania!! I don't even know one!!
I'm not being fresh, but I would like to know…what did you do when you found out that these people were here illegally? I don't think we are required by law to report a crime, but illegal does mean breaking the law. And while I'm sure these people are super nice, there is a way to come into this country legally. If they are breaking the law to come into our country what makes us think that they will obey the laws of our land once they are here? I don't know…just a thought.
BEA, you probably have known some illegal immigrants, it's not something they would want to make common knowledge. I'm proud of the fact that they trusted me enough to share their story with me. Are you suggesting the general public should tell authorities if they suspect someone is here illegally? Thats something they did in nazi Germany to round up Jews and anyone else who did not agree with them.
Trust notwithstanding, what if you knew about some illegals (of any origin) and they did something very bad. Are you now an accomplice, or will you do press interviews saying "they were really quiet and kept to themselves"?
I recall someone on another topic taking great umbrage that the mosque builders were being compared to Nazis. Are you comparing concerned citizens reporting a crime with Nazism?
Scottm…
I know this is going to sound awful to you…but yes, as a citizen of the United States of America, I feel it is my moral obligation to abide by and uphold the laws of this great land, and I would turn in someone that was breaking the law. Who am I to determine what laws should be obeyed and which ones should not.
I'm not sure what you mean by your Nazi reference (it's late and my brain is slow) but if I'm not mistaken the German Jews were residing in Germany legally and in 1935 under the Nuremberg Laws they were then stripped of their citizenship and rights as citizens. So they were citizens first and they were there legally. The illegal immigrants that are in the US are not citizens because they are here illegally.
BTW, I'm totally not opposed to someone coming into this country based on their skin color, the language they speak, their religion, etc. I'm opposed to someone coming into this country by way of breaking the law.
Yes, the Jews were there legally and the Nazi's still convinced citizens to turn them over to the authorities along with anyone else who disagreed with their agenda. History has regarded the few citizens who shielded the Jews and other targeted groups as heroes. If someone who you were friends with and/or worked with for several years and found them to be of great moral character and a true and loyal friend confided in you that they were here illegally, you would turn them in? I like to think that you and most of the population would not. I should not have used a Nazi reference, that has been used way too often by politicians trying to further their agenda and I apologize. To dims, how would someone doing something very bad make me an accomplice? If you see someone running a red light do you call the police? What if you don't and that same person does the same thing a week later and kills someone, would that make you an accomplice?
That "Nazi Germany Jew" argument is the most egregious strawman (read "red herring") I've seen in a long time. Not only irrelevant, but designed to evoke a visceral response. Low. Very, very low. But a typical left-wing attempt at argument; fallacious and completely devoid of class, all in one blow.
I feel the same way which is why I apologized, now maybe Newt and the rest of the right wing fanatics will stop comparing everyone they disagree with to Hitler.
The politicians will simply ignore that just like they ignore and refuse to enforce current immigration laws.
I suspect Øbama will end run the Congress, and more importantly, the American people, and just grant the illegals citizenship during the lame duck session, or during the recess. It will seal his fate, but not before it seals ours.
We all know the Irish and the Italians have never paraded their flags in this country. Maybe we can throw out anybody who roots for another country in the olympics or the world cup.
I'm specifically referring to the violent immigration rallies in the southwest during the last two years …. and you know it. Not seeing any Germans, Irish or Spanish immigrants at those hate rallies.
@scottm – ahh yes, who gives a crap about Supreme Court case law or the Constitution itself. Did Eastman suggest we kick everyone out? Not at all – great strawman.
You don’t mention the violent immigration rallies in your post.? If your looking for whites at hate rallies try going to a Klan rally.? John Eastman must be proud of himself, he managed to dig up some court cases from the 1800’s to support getting rid of people who were born and raised here.?
I noticed you put your little disclaimer, thats one of Fox "news" tricks, they say they aren't condemning the religion of Islam just before they condemn the religion of Islam. And the link to Michelle Malkin was good, no possible way she's biased, after all she's one of the few on there that does'nt look like a cast member of leave it to Beaver or Father knows best. I don't know too much about the constitution other than the fact that politicians and their lawyers have been twisting it to further their agenda since the day it was written. Maybe we can make Glenn Beck an honorary founding father to set us all straight.
Apparently Steve Mcgough only "gives a crap" about Supreme Court cases that favor his opinion and ignores the others. Great Strawman.
There is a huge difference between flags in parades of legal immigrants that actually did/want to assimilate and flags being flown in defiance by illegal aliens who simply think squatter's rights prevail. If the countries they come from don't put up with illegal aliens, why should we?
Come to think of it, some cities and towns (Amherst comes to mind) won't let you fly the American flag when you want to!
Dims, you're stretching it a little about Amherst. From what I understand, they only fly the town's American flags on certain holidays, the residents of the town can fly the flag at their homes any time they wish.
Oh, I don't think it is much of a stretch. If you will recall, on the evening of September 10, 2001, the town of Amherst was having a meeting about displaying American flags put up by a group of veterans after Labor Day after a number of complaints. One Prof. Jennie Traschen of UMASS Anherst (Physics) stood up and said "Actually, what the flag stands for is a symbol of terrorism and death and fear and destruction and repression." (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/14/sm.09.html)
This is typical thinking in uberliberal Amherst. Traschen just had the bad timing of saying it on 9/10/01.
Well said scottm. Who wants to comment on what happens to a child born in a US Embassy (that is US soil) after the parent(s) were allowed in having asked for asylum?
Steve you use fact.the United States Constitution and Supreme Court rulings…………….That's almost like cheating. Using all those as though they might carry any weight against whacko liberals. You keep up the good work , most of us will stay with the "real" Constitution and do just fine.
Why don't we go back to the original days when African Americans were considered 3/5 of a human being and women did not have the right to vote. Ahh the good old days.
scott: what does that possibly have to do with illegal aliens residing in our country? I want to see them considered 0/5 of a citizen and 5/5 of a human being.
Gary J refers to the "real" constitution in his post, the original constitution considered African-Americans as 3/5 of a human being, and women did not have the right to vote.
I'll bite! The aforementioned clause in the 14th Amendment prevails. If they are accepted as legal immigrants via the asylum process, then the child can share their status. If they are rejected, then the fruit of their loins goes back with them, as a native of the country they came from. The rest of the world has no problem with this. I don't know why we have to.
The status of the child needs to follow the status of one or both of the parents. Logical and loads of precedent.
We better do something about our porous Canadian border before it's too late!!! There are a lot of French speaking people in Maine and we need to stop this before our USA culture is destroyed.
Scott all the French Canadians I know crossed over legally learned to speak English and became naturalized citizens.
No need! I heard that Canada was a liberal utopia and nobody wanted to leave! The streets are paved with free health care! 😉
So long as there is no bilingual education in French, they can speak whatever they want to speak.
Maybe we can use Louie Gohmert's R-Texas rationale for dis-allowing citizenship, he says that they are having babies here, then leaving to train them as terrorists, then having them come back 20 years later and attack our country. Of course they can easily enter because they are U.S. citizens. Is this guy nuts or what? Even Lou Dobbs does not agree to denying citizenship to babies that were born here to illegal immigrants.
While it may not be a sufficient reason to disallow citizenship (redundant and unnecessary actually), can you actually say this can't or hasn't happened? If the terrorists were "brilliant" enough to formulate the 9/11 plan, why would they be beyond them?
And I, for one, believe that illegals on our soil should not be automatically made citizens. For common sense reasons as well as the above. It has been proven to be successful in the rest of the world.
We are not "the rest of the world" and we were founded, as a country, to not be like "the rest of the world".
When can one decide where they can be born and who their parents would be?
How can you justfy calling a person a "criminal" and persecute them on the circumstances of their birth?
It's this funny thing called the law, and control of your borders and immigration. No, you are right: nobody can decide their parents or birthplace. But their parents can decide. Being called a non citizen is not being a criminal, it is being French, or Turkish or (shudder!) Mexican. It is only criminal if you are here illegally, i.e. without permission. Ask Mexico. They are all perfectly free to go home.
I suppose it is possible just as it is possible a right wing nut job such as Tim Mcveigh could become a terrorist. What I'm saying is this loony politician is grasping at straws to come up with something as ridiculous as this.
Planes flying into buildings was considered ridiculous too. Once upon a time…
Sounds like it is "convenient" to emulate the "rest of the world", when the item fits the agenda (see Dims). For all other occasions the US is exceptional.
You got it, Sammy!
On the subject of citizenship, the right is happy to point to Europe as a shining example of what the US should be; and yet on nearly every other subject (health care and labor rights as just two examples) the right is constantly telling us how terrible Europe is.
As the old saying goes, a broken clock tells the time correctly twice a day. I don't see a problem in borrowing a good idea, particularly when the security, economic or otherwise, of the country is at stake.
Similarly, it does not require that we accept their truly stupid ideas, like socialism etc. Didn't Mussolini make the trains run on time? 😉
Then refer back to the "“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Amendment.