Is ‘birthright citizenship’ about to die?

Yesterday in his impromptu White House lawn press gaggle, President Trump mentioned that he was considering an Executive Order that would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to persons who are not citizens.

“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.”

But can he do it? I mean, would it be legal. Doesn’t the 14th amendment guarantee citizenship to those born in the USA? Wouldn’t that make it beyond the reach of an Executive Order?

Not really. That’s the opinion of some Constitutional scholars, and Democrats didn’t always think that citizenship was guaranteed to the children of non-citizens.

“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right?” Harry Reid said in 1993. “Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that’s a lot of services.

Perhaps Reid and fellow Democrats believed this before they viewed anchor babies as future voters.

Varying points of view are outlined in WESTERN JOURNAL:

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky wrote for The Daily Signal last year:

“Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of ‘birthright’ citizenship.

“Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has ‘subjected’ himself or herself ‘to the jurisdiction’ of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike.

“But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

“The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political ‘jurisdiction’ of the United States, as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.”

Of course, this won’t settle the question in the eyes of those in the media and others on the left. Expect more emotional questions from supposedly objective reporters about the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty. Fortunately, those reporters aren’t judges.

I’m sure it is inevitable that any such Executive Order would be challenged in the courts, and most likely end up at the Supreme Court. How the judges will rule is the question.



This entry was posted in Constitution, Government, Illegal Immigration, Politics, Refugees & Aliens, The Culture, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Is ‘birthright citizenship’ about to die?

  1. czarowniczy says:

    The concept of birthright citizenship is obscene, we are one of the few countries where all you have to do is put one pregnant foot inside of the US and, POW, you’re kid’s a citizen. Most countries demand that at least one parent need be a citizen of that country before a child born there can be a citizen by right of birth. Try that ‘birthright’ crap in Mexico.

    Liked by 3 people

    • rheavolans says:

      I wish more liberals WOULD go try that crap in Mexico.

      It might encourage them to buy a clue.

      Liked by 4 people

    • glendl says:

      Between 1868 and 1965, birthright citizenship did not exist as it is used today. Even Indians who were given special status in the US Constitution did not qualify as it is used today.
      In 1965, “Anchor Babies”, aka Birthright Citizenship was invented. This hairball idea came in by Executive Order by President Johnson, and it moved onto a regulation by a civil rights agency. As I see it, it can disappear the same way.

      To accomplish this travesty, Johnson perverted the 14th Amendment. Amendments to the Consitution are designed for a specific purpose and should not be changed to another purpose. The 14th Amendment was ratified with the purpose of ensuring that former slaves, Black American citizens, did not lose their citizenship by machinations by Southern Democrats. I mention this because it was enacted by Northern Republicans and Southerners who had been elected to Congress under the protection of the Union Army. Because of that, some consider it not exactly valid.

      The 1965 Immigration Reform Act and Anchor Babies were 2 of the 6 governmental actions taken in the 1960s, which I maintain intentionally put us on the road to implode at some time in the future. I am guessing, between 2010 and 2015. What needed Reforming? We were the greatest nation in the history of the world.

      Liked by 2 people

      • czarowniczy says:

        The Founders recognized that it was dang near impossible to write the Constitution in such a way that future slimy professional politicians couldn’t parse it to meet their own slimy needs. They left it to the people, whose interests and freedoms it spelled out and protected, to protect it and they and their families futures.

        Ben Franklin was right, we see how well that turned out.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. jeans2nd says:

    Hans Von Spakovsky spoke with WMAL this morning about this.
    HVS covers all the bases in this interview, including the 1890s Supreme Court decision – that decision does not apply, as both parents were permanent legal residents, albeit not citizens. That SCOTUS decision does not apply to illegal non-residents.

    Further, In the 1920s, Congress passed a law granting citizenship to Indian Reservation inhabitants, which further indicates birth on our soil does not automatically grant citizenship.

    As HVS said in this interview, a child from two German residents, having the child on U.S. soil, is German by German laws, thus not an American citizen.

    HVS explains it better in this interview than my interpretation. The first 5 or so minutes covers birthright citizenship, the second part covers the new illegal alien family rules.
    The first 30 seconds is a comercial. 9:10

    Pres Trump is going to do this to get this in front of SCOTUS, imo, and thank you Pres Trump for once again being the even-minded adult in a sea of fools.

    Liked by 3 people

    • glendl says:


      All male citizens must register for the Selective Service upon reaching their 18th Birthday. They do that because they are subject to the jurisdiction of US laws.

      Absence of prosecutions indicates that this does not apply to some people.

      Liked by 1 person

    • czarowniczy says:

      We lost the House and are within the skin of one tooth of losing the Senate. If we lose the WH and, by one vote, the Senate in 2020 while they hold the House the cabal WILL restructure the Supreme Court.

      We’ve known since FDR that the Rats want to restructure the SCOTUS but need a full Rat government to do so. That done, and they again threatened the SCOTUS with that just a week or so age, they can rule by judicial fiat.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. jeans2nd says:

    Stella, WP once again ate a somewhat lengthy comment. Wasn’t particularly erudite, but remember, just b/c one is paranoid does not mean they are not out to gitcha. 😉


  4. rheavolans says:

    I hope the President does pass an EO to do it.

    I’m sure that this is a bad precedent, but I gave up caring about that when I had to endure eight years of Barack “I have a pen and a phone” Obama.

    THis birthright citizenship garbage needs to die. Walking across the border and squeezing a child out on US soil does not make them a citizen and doesn’t give the mother of the parasite unlimited right to stay here either.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. auscitizenmom says:

    I certainly hope so.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.