Donald Trump is claiming that he will end the practice where a pregnant woman illegally enters the US then presents herself to an Emergency Room while in labor, the hospital delivers the baby as required by EMTALA, and the baby is subsequently declared to be a US citizen. The left then claims that it is unfair to separate a child from the rest of the family, thereby making the child an ‘anchor baby’ shoehorning in half a dozen illegals. This practice is called birthright citizenship.
The left claims that Trump can’t stop this because of the 14th Amendment, which reads (in pertinent part):
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.
It isn’t quite as easy as the left would have you believe. The Supreme Court decided this in 1873, and I would think that the court in 1873, a mere 5 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment would have a bit of firsthand knowledge of what the Amendment was for. This is what they had to say in the case of Elk v. Wilkins (1873):
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is 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.
Meaning, of course, that it isn’t as simple as “where were you born” but indicating that there are more limits to be explored here. Furthermore, SCOTUS ruled in 1872 that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was:
The first clause of the fourteenth article was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race, and secondly to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and citizenship of the States, and it recognizes the distinction between citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States by those definitions.
The question isn’t as cut and dried as the left would have us believe. This one is going to SCOTUS, I think. This shows that Trump is not the ignorant buffoon that the left wants us to think that he is.
7 Comments
oldvet50 · January 21, 2025 at 7:09 am
I think the question really is cut and dried. When you illegally invade our country, by definition, you are NOT subject to our jurisdiction since you ignored our laws by being here. The left uses the same type of argument for gun ownership claiming it was written to ensure the militia could have weapons.
Nolan Parker · January 21, 2025 at 7:50 am
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
If a stranger was visiting and gave birth in my house, the kid isn’t mine. I have no relationship with the mother. If thehe mother has no Relationship with America other than dashing across the border to give birth, the kid isn’t American.
John in Indy · January 21, 2025 at 4:42 pm
The key phrase is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A foreigner becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the US by applying to the US Government for permission to enter.
Illegal invaders have not done that.
Proof that presence in the US, and the 14th Amendment, do not operate as the Left claims, is in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1923, which granted to members of the various Indian Tribes Citizenship in the United States, without terminating their membership in their Tribe.
One of the leading cases used by the Left is Wong Kim Ark, and 1898 case about the citizenship of a Chinese child born here to legal resident parents, despite laws excluding Chinese from the US as immigrants, as part of an agreement with the Emperor of China to not take and keep his subjects. On the basis of the parents legal residence, the child was held to be born a citizen.
This will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and there, could have the effect of invalidating the claims for citizenship and anchor baby status for all illegal invaders and their children.
The argument, based on criminal laws, that anyone in the US is subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the US, and that jurisdiction is jurisdiction is wrong because while an invader could be caught and forcibly subjected to the criminal jurisdiction of the US, they have not subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Neither does the Open Courts policy affect citizenship. US Courts are open to all parties, regardless of residency or citizenship, but access to our Courts does not grant or affect citizenship.
John in Indy
oldvet50 · January 22, 2025 at 7:16 am
Of course I agree with you, but since this has been an ongoing issue for decades, how can we identify those born from illegals on US soil? The parent’s citizenship is not indicated on the child’s certificate. If I had to produce my dead parents’ birth certificate, I would not know where to begin.
RTG1215 · January 22, 2025 at 5:25 pm
The answer would be that you don’t have to prove your citizenship/innocence, the government has to prove your lack of citizenship/guilt.
LargeMarge · January 22, 2025 at 12:39 am
During her travels from her ShxtholeOfACountry® to fUSA, did our new mother perchance have a romantic rendezvous with some jungle rat?
That feral scum planted his dominant seed:
.. low-IQ
.. brutality
.. disloyalty
.. aggression
.. zero empathy
.. career criminal
.. not deterred by prison or execution
.. unbidened by the significance of the passage of time.
.
I choose to not have that as my neighbor.
TCK · January 22, 2025 at 5:33 am
I still feel that the easiest way to solve this issue to simply make it so that committing a violent felony in America after illegally invading our territory is automatically a capitol offense at the federal level. Apply to the same punishment to ALL parties responsible for aiding and abetting that invasion and watch as the problem disappears.
Comments are closed.