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.
2 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.