Trump Right: 14th Amendment Did Not Guarantee Birthright Citizenship

~ Forewords ~
When I saw the name *Paul Ryan* in this it confirmed my lifelong stand that the 14th Amendment has been falsely used to allow what we now call “Anchor Babies”. Paul Ryan is one of the biggest ENEMIES WITHIN this nation has had. Makes me wonder WHAT is he up to now since reading he is moving back to WDC. His name should be Paul RINO – chief SWAMP DIRECTOR.

Like I stated a day or so ago… If a homeless woman walked into your house and had a baby in your living room – does that baby then become YOUR responsibility and an heir to YOUR estate.. does that mean the mother and all the rest of her family have *rights* to live off of you and what you have worked for for your legitimate family members? According to the people who falsely declare such for these ILLEGALS under the 14th Amendment they would.

Voters need to discern WHO and WHAT it is they cast their vote for. A poisonous snake isn’t good for you even if it says it is. These Deep State SWAMPERS are of the most poisonous snakes. They love to CHARM you with their LIES and once they have gained office they begin to insert their deadly poisons into your lives. While most of them wear a Democrat label – many disguise themselves with the R label but they are as far from being Conservative Constitutional individuals as the openly slithering snakes of the ‘D’ bunch.

They are Spiritual DEMONS and their intent and goal is to herd you to HELL while telling you they are taking you to Heaven. ~ Jackie Juntti (Granny)

President Trump told reporters on the White House’s South Lawn on Wednesday that he is looking “very seriously” into ending the practice of declaring anyone who happens to be born on U.S. soil a U.S. citizen. Trump’s announcement provoked immediate and predictable outrage from across the political Establishment, just as it did eight months ago, when Trump first broached the subject.

Trump ridiculed the idea of granting citizenship automatically to every baby born in America, whether the child’s parents are here legally or illegally, saying, “We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby ­ congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. It’s frankly ridiculous.”

When Trump addressed the issue last October, he suggested that he could end birthright citizenship simply by executive order. He justified such an action by arguing that “birthright citizenship” was not part of the Constitution, and predicted the question would eventually be settled by the Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

It is not surprising that Democrats have almost unanimously fallen in line with the interpretation that this language confers citizenship on any person who just happens to be born on U.S. soil, but many establishment Republican politicians and opinion organs also insist the 14th Amendment makes all person born in the U.S. citizens at birth.

For example, John Yoo, a law professor at Cal-Berkeley, felt strongly enough about the subject to pen an essay to argue against Trump’s position. Yoo served in the administration of President George W. Bush.

“According to the best reading of its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is an American citizen,” Yoo wrote.

Paul Ryan, who was the speaker of the house when Trump first raised the issue, demonstrated his own solidly establishment credentials in disputing Trump. “As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.”

The Wall Street Journal, often regarded as something of a Republican newspaper, joined Ryan and Yoo in denouncing Trump’s position. The paper’s editorial board concluded that Trump’s “birth citizenship gambit” was wrong on both “immigration law and politics.” The Wall Street Journal, while conservative on some issues, is largely the mouthpiece of corporate America, which likes the cheap labor provided by desperate immigrants. (continued below…)

Why there is no such thing as anchor babies. The 14th Amendment says, “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.”

Key phrase is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

When you sneak in you are purposely avoiding the jurisdiction of the United States and our immigration laws.

It is important to read the debates and committee hearings when the amendment was debated. It was only to address, the status of children born to slaves that were here AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF… which of course they were.

There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. and nearly 300,000 anchor babies are born every year.

The sanctuary state of California is home to at least 1.2 million anchor babies under the age of 18, as Breitbart News reported. This is roughly twice the total population of Wyoming. The number of anchor babies under the age of 18 in ten U.S. states is more than four times the population of Boston, Massachusetts. ~ John Stokes

While a few nations do allow automatic citizenship to any person born on their soil, the overwhelming majority of nations do not.

But, on the constitutional question ­ and the political question ­ who is right, Trump or his critics?

How anyone could argue that making a citizen out of a person simply because that person was born in the United States, even if he or she and the baby’s parents were in the country illegally, is good politics, is illogical. The reality is that the vast majority of persons born in America without either parent having any legal permission to be here, grow up to vote more liberal policies. Considering that these babies turn out to vote Democrat a significant majority of the time, this makes the support of a Republican leader like Ryan quite curious.

Despite the politics, is law professor Yoo correct in his assertion that anyone born on American soil “no matter … is an American citizen?”

Hardly. The 14th Amendment was actually designed to make citizens of the former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865, and thus guarantee that they would enjoy all the rights of American citizenship. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has, of course, been ignored by those promoting the concept of open borders. Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment intended that only children “born subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that is, the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered natural-born citizens. This would, by the clear wording of the amendment, not include the children of illegal aliens or “birth tourists,” because they are still under the jurisdiction of foreign governments.

Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, an author of the 14th Amendment, said during the discussions over the effects of the amendment, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.”

In other words, those who are born in the United States “under the jurisdiction thereof” would only include those whose parents are American citizens themselves, or those whose parents have placed themselves under U.S. jurisdiction ­ legal residents, such as those who have entered the country legally, as legal immigrants, in the process of becoming American citizens, or at least permanent legal residents.

Such clear language is ignored by those, such as Professor Yoo, who want to flood the country with illegal aliens. Not surprisingly, while working for President Bush, Yoo actually argued that presidents can go to war on their own without any authorization whatsoever from Congress, despite the clear wording of the Constitution that only Congress has the power to declare war.

Once again, Trump is correct and his detractors are wrong.

Written by Steve Byas for The New American ~ August 24, 2019

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.