The 14^th Amendment DOES NOT give Blanket Birthright Citizenship to all born on U.S. Soil.   I have addressed this before, but I feel strongly that I need to reiterate my arguments and those of the legislation’s authors.    The only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution and the Amendments is to go back to the original and determine their expressed and indicated intent.  This is incredibly easy to do in this case but is ignored by many on the Right and the Left.    PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS!

You may vehemently disagree with me on this, but I will present my argument drawn from the words of the amendment’s authors and how it was understood in the days following its ratification. I contend that those of that era would have had NO ISSUE with Donald Trump’s Executive Order. In fact, they would have found no need for it.

With the continued push by the Leftists and some RINOs to legalize and make citizens of the presumed 11 to 30 million Illegals now in the USA, I feel the need to address this again.  I keep hearing from people on the Left and the Right that if a person is born on U.S. soil, they are automatically a citizen.  That is Wrong!  Before you insist I am wrong and throw something at your computer screen, let me delve into this again for the umpteenth time.

The Democrats railed against President Trump when he issued an Executive Order ending “birthright citizenship.”  They have called him everything but a human being and made him worse than Lucifer and a reincarnation of Genghis Khan.   President Biden and his predecessors on the Left took the opposite path and continued to bypass Congress and the Constitution.  The plan and desire of the leftist globalists liberal ideologues is to provide amnesty to the illegals.  The proponents deem it justified and praiseworthy.  I consider it both unconstitutional and dangerous.

Many on both the Left and the Right fail to comprehend this amendment’s actual wording and intent.  Like many things, it has morphed into something other than the Original Intent.  I offer my two cents, hoping to bring some clarity to the argument.   If I achieve that after numerous attempts, it will be nothing short of a miracle, but I feel compelled to place myself on the chopping block again for the sake of the Republic and the Constitution.

Illegal Immigration and Amnesty are not secondary issues in today’s political climate.  The very anti-Trump Bret Baier of Fox News during the 2016 presidential election made it clear that he and many do not understand the intent of the authors of the Amendment nor the Founders of the Republic regarding citizenship. 

This issue is, in many respects, an economic issue.  It is assuredly a national security issue.  It is unquestionably a national sovereignty issue.  It is also a moral and social issue. 

At one time, I thought that if a person were born in the United States, they were automatically granted citizenship by the United States Constitution.  As a history student in college and over the past 50-plus years, I have discovered the writings of the authors of the 14th Amendment and their view of what that amendment was designed to do.

The 14th Amendment, as per Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, in 1866, wrote, “…every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.  This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” 

Please note that “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean being in the country physically but means “not owing allegiance” to any other foreign nation.  It is not just the physical jurisdiction but the complete jurisdiction of the United States of America.  Illegals cannot make that claim because they are ILLEGAL! 

In 1866, Senator Edward Cowan wrote, “A foreigner in the United States has a right to the protection of the laws, but is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”  The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” were intended to exclude American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete from automatic citizenship.  

The Native Americans were not initially included, although born here because it was perceived that their allegiance was not complete to the United States but to their own tribal councils.  Regarding illegal aliens here in the United States unlawfully, their native country has a claim of allegiance, of the child as well as the parents. 

Therefore, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired and precludes automatic citizenship.  The proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

In the “Slaughter-House Cases,” the Supreme Court confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship.   In 1884 Elk v. Wilkins, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to include “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born with the United States.”  

In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered NOT an American citizen because the law required him to 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.” 

The Courts essentially declared that the parents’ status determines the child’s citizenship.  To qualify children for “birthright citizenship,” based on the 14th Amendment, parents MUST owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction.  They must be citizens of the United States of America.

The argument that being born here automatically affords “birthright citizenship” in the United States is to ignore the wording and intent of the Amendment.  One cannot merely self-immigrate illegally and then claim jurisdiction because they are here.  They are citizens of another country and subject to the jurisdiction of that country.  They become subject to our laws, which do not give them citizenship.  

The 14^th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily directed at extending citizenship to the freed slaves.   The Amendment’s wording was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” should be considered citizens. 

The Amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction.  Senator Lyman Trumbull, R-IL, a key figure in its adoption, stated, “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

American Indians did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14^th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter the circumstances of their birth and no matter their parents’ legal status. 

I pray that everyone, including the Supreme Court Justices, will always consider that fact and realize that, based on the wording and declarations of the framers, the original intent. Birthright Citizenship is not part of our Constitution; politicians have made it so, not the document itself.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding American Indians not taxed.”  The question of American Indians Senator Howard argued, “…have always been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as quasi-foreign nations.” 

Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed with Senator Howard, stating, “…it would be a violation of our treaty obligations… to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have treaties saying we would not do so.”   Trumbull insisted that the Indian tribes were not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.  He stated, “…it is ONLY those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”

The decisive factor is that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads: “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  That includes Section 1, deemed the “citizenship clause.” 

Would Congress pass legislation granting “birthright citizenship” to the children of illegal aliens?  Do wild bears live in the woods?  If they follow the arguments of the authors of the clauses and amendment, they would not, but if they follow present-day political correctness, they would. 

In 2016, I was traveling to East Texas for a Nursing Home Program with my brother and heard a Republican candidate for a political office in my state speaking.  As they all do, he was proclaiming his great conservatism and the subject of immigration came up.  He made the following statements saying he supported:

• Removing the Citizenship Birthright of Children of Illegals.
• Making the guest workers possess a biometric ID card.
• Ending the bi-lingual ballots for voting

The host lauded him for his conservatism on those points. Then he said that regarding Immigration Reform, he supported the Republican Immigration Reform Plan, which, as he stated, was “Giving those of the 12 million or so ILLEGALS Green Cards, making them Guest Workers but without a pathway to citizenship.” 

He reasoned that we could not deport twelve million illegals, and because we could not then, it made no sense to have ICE or the Border Patrol looking for them.  He said that not taking this step would be a de facto amnesty.  He argued that focusing on the illegals would detract from securing the border and, rather than securing the border, reducing the number of immigrants who can come and enforcing the current laws on immigration that because we could not catch them all, the law should not be enforced. 

To his credit, the host challenged that, and I was yelling at my radio, shouting – REALLY?  My question was, if we have bank robbers and cannot catch them all, do we cease enforcing the law?  If we cannot catch all those driving under the influence, does that mean we should not enforce the law?  What law do we have where we require that 100% are apprehended to make the law valid? 

He further argued that most of the twelve million Illegals do not want to be citizens; they want to work, and that by making them legal, we would suddenly have an enormous influx of tax revenue pouring into the coffers.  Really?  If they know that the law will not be enforced and do not want to vote or be citizens, what would motivate them to identify themselves and make them liable for taxes, etc.?

I do not believe that illegals should get free tuition to go to college.  I do not believe that they should receive free health care, food stamps, or any other entitlement.  I also say to the employers who knowingly employ illegals, you are also a lawbreaker and should face the brunt of the law. 

Then there is the issue of those who were born here or brought here at a very young age by parents illegally.  Still, I do not see how that mandates that we give what would become nothing more than blanket amnesty to those who have broken our laws and thumbed their noses at our constitution. 

Immigration is one of our many issues; securing our borders must become one of our top priorities.  We have the resources to accomplish that, and I believe that law enforcement reduces the number of those breaking the law over the long haul.  It certainly gives pause to some who weigh the consequences. 

Those for whom the consequences are inconsequential will do what they do regardless, and no reform will change that.  Criminals who have utter disregard for the law will not magically change.

May God be with you as you go through your day!