The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Birthright Citizenship, the Constitution, and the Subterfuge of the Left
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_601099430

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Leftist hyenas howled…the wimpish, scaredy-cat Republicans wailed…the television pundits, both on the Mainstream channels and on Fox (and, yes, even locally) seemed ready to shed tears of anguish punctuating their uncontrolled outrage: what had Donald Trump done this time to cause such extreme perturbation? What had he done this time to increase their unleashed hysteria and self-consuming madness?

Watching any of the so-called newscasters on CNN, MSNBC or on the other major networks frothing-at-the-mouth, you would have thought that their pious and frenetic condemnations could not get more severe. But Joe Scarborough over on MSNBC would up the ante and expectorate multiple, blustering word clusters, all of which contained loaded phrases about Donald Trump, like “full blown racism,” “appeals to white supremacy,” “undermines and attacks our democracy,” each more emotional as he went along. Finally, that Trump was not really “our” president, but in fact an interloper—and if that be the case, then almost any type of resistance is permissible.

You get the drift.

These are the very same folks who have been telling us since the pipe bomber and the anti-semitic attack in Pittsburgh last week that the president is completely responsible for the “climate of hatred and fear,” but who do all they can to stoke that out-of-control raging bonfire.

And locally in Raleigh, NC, a pompous social justice warrior disguised as a television announcer, David Crabtree of WRAL-TV, who wears his nugatory Episcopalianism on his sleeve, could hardly restrain himself. His eyes betrayed both his anger and his abject fear….

But what was it that Donald Trump had done this time? What had inspired such “fear and loathing” in all those denizens of the lunatic Left…and, yes, in the Establishment GOP (including a fatuous and obviously self-serving, utterly stupid statement by outgoing House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan)?

Very simply, the president had said he was seriously considering issuing an Executive Order to both clarify the application of the 14th Amendment and, essentially, end birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens who have come across the US border, many specifically to have children who then, as if by magic, become American citizens. That is, he was going to do exactly what President Obama had once boasted he would do with a “pen and telephone,” and for which he was praised by the Mainstream media and academia for his statesmanship and his understanding of the real meaning of Constitution.

Recall that the 14th Amendment was enacted after the War Between the States to guarantee the rights of citizenship to manumitted slaves and their offspring. And, indeed, there is a serious legal question about whether the amendment itself was ever legally and legitimately ratified. But be that as it may, it has applied ever since 1868.

Here is how Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As I watched David Crabtree in his most officiously sanctimonious manner lecture his local television audience about the president’s desire to clarify the amendment’s actual legal application, like other members of mainstream commentariat he quoted the first section thusly: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Notice the difference; notice the essential phrase he left out, either by mistake or by design: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

It’s a key phrase, critical to understanding what the authors of the amendment intended and what for nearly 100 years was accepted law up until the 1960s when leftist lawmakers got into the act simply by de facto practical applications. In other words, between the very clear and forthright intention of its authors that the 14th Amendment only applied to slaves and their offspring born in the United State who are necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and the slyly imposed practice we now have which enables a foreign woman to illegally slip across the Rio Grande and have a child who then, mutatis mutandis, becomes a citizen and an “anchor baby,” permitting usually its illegal relations to all come across—between these two interpretations and applications there is an absolute irreconcilable difference.

The key figures in drafting the amendment at the time were clear: As Professor John Eastman has pointed out both recently and back in 2006 in his research essay, “From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship,” Heritage Foundation, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was pivotal in the drafting the 14th Amendment, declared that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to the “complete” jurisdiction of the United States, and “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, responsible for the specific language of the jurisdiction clause, stated that it meant “a full and complete jurisdiction,” that is, “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the new born child of a foreign diplomat in the United States did not receive automatic citizenship; neither did at the time, for that matter, citizens of Indian “nations” (that would occur later in our history). And, most importantly, clearly an illegal alien—a non-citizen—simply by giving birth on this side geographically of the Rio Grande did not produce a new citizen of the United States.

Ann Coulter, in a column from August 19, 2015, sums up the subsequent history and the regnant confusion, both invincible and vincible, on the question—a piece that should be read by some of those Fox pundits.

You can see why the advocates of open borders who wish to obliterate national boundaries, the social justice warriors and Democratic activists trolling for potential future dependent voters, and the brain-damaged modernist Christians would so ferociously oppose a strict constitutional interpretation.

Despite the shrieks of the no boundaries crowd and the frenzied left, and despite the groans of the Chamber of Commerce-bound establishment Republicans (and various Fox pundits and scribblers for National Review and other neoconservative and globalist publications), President Trump has expressed an idea whose time has come, in fact, is far overdue. At the very least, an Executive Order would force the courts, including the Supreme Court, to take a serious look at an historic abuse of our immigration system and the definition of American citizenship. Of course, Senator Lindsey Graham plans to introduce legislation, so he says, to do the same thing that the president promises—but Graham has a history of favoring amnesty, which makes his motives at least suspect. And, more, does anyone in his right mind, any rational person, actually believe that Congress, part of which is controlled by the hard Left, and much of the rest by GOP big donor cheap labor advocates, will actually get off its duff and enact such legislation? Not likely.

So, here’s hoping that President Trump will follow through and issue his Executive Order, and then let the ACLU and far Left howl and the wimpy Republicans wail.

We’ll see you—hopefully—in court, gentlemen.

 
Hide 128 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Adrian E. says:

    I think there can be legitimate dabate whether people who have come illegally to a country and hide from the authorities of that country really fulfill the condition of being under the jurisdiction of that country. That is a matter of interpretation, and ultimately, courts will have to decide.

    As far as legal immigrants are concerned, it seems clear that no change is possible without a constitutional amendment. Automatic citizenship with birth seems to be something completely outdated. Until the middle of the 20th century, probably the vast majority of people who went to the US from Europe had emigrated there for good. Certainly, if children grow up in the US, it should be easy for them to get US citizenship. But now, there are many people who only work temporarily in another country, and it is rather absurd when the children of a couple who went to the US for a few years automatically become US citizens, even if they have left the US in early childhood after being born there. Having US citizenship can have quite unpleasant consequences for people in other countries, especially as far as taxes are concerned, and opening bank accounts (e.g. in Switzerland) is more difficult for people with US citizenship.

    What I find most absurd is when now some Democrats claim it is „racist“ when people don’t automatically receive the citizenship of the country in which they are born. So all of Europe and Asia is „racist“, and only in North and South America, there are a few non-racist countries?

    • Replies: @renfro
    , @Bill H
    , @anon
  2. anon[427] • Disclaimer says:

    As far as legal immigrants are concerned, it seems clear that no change is possible without a constitutional amendment.

    How so? All green card holders and those here on any kind of visa including work visa are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, they are foreign nationals, subject to the jurisdiction of their own government. Only US citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US , which is why we only rescue hostages from Somali pirates who are US citizens, not citizens of any other country.

    All other developed countries require at least 1 parent to be citizen before children born in their country can be citizen. It’s time we do the same.

    WA state AG Bob Ferguson is already threatening to sue. He’s the same mofo who launched the first Muslim ban lawsuit. The mofo is eager to make a name for himself so he could run for governor in 2020. I’m glad Trump is at least getting people talking about it. He needs to walk the talk and sign the EO, tell the prog mofo’s: bring it!

    • Replies: @Bill H
  3. renfro says:

    This is why migrants chose the US to come to. I don’t know what other countries offer.

    Federal welfare programs that refugees and asylees can access include the following:

    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) formerly known as AFDC
    Medicaid
    Food Stamps
    Public Housing
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    Social Security Disability Insurance
    Child Care and Development Fund
    Job Opportunities for Low Income Individuals (JOLI)
    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
    Postsecondary Education Loans and Grants

    State and local welfare programs that refugees and asylees can apply for include but are not limited to:

    Housing assistance
    English as a Second Language programs
    Special education programs
    Job training and employment search assistance
    Social services programs
    Immigration assistance programs (aiding asylees in filing green card applications, citizenship applications, and petitions for relatives to immigrate to the U.S.)12

    Eligibility for some of these programs expires seven years after an individual is admitted to the United States as a refugee or asylee. However, many welfare programs are available for as long as a refugee/asylee resides in the United States.13

  4. MB says:

    Section 1. 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.

    Should read:

    Section 1. All persons born or illegal aliens are automatically naturalized by merely residing within the physical bounds of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof therefore are automatically citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . . .

    There fixed it for ya.

    • Replies: @Anthony Aaron
  5. One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.

  6. It was the Plessy gang who gave us Wong. They never explain why one decision is evil and the other holy writ, coming from the same pentad.

    The one justice who voted against both decisions, John Marshall Harlan, was quick to point out in his Wong dissent that Mr Plessy had fought for the Union, and this was the thanks he got.

    This whole mess could have been prevented had there been a loophole in the Chinese exclusion acts for the handful of cases like Mr Wong’s. Those would have had a trivial effect on our population, while keeping our immigration law intact.

    But absolutism will be met with absolutism.

  7. @renfro

    Eligibility for some of these programs expires seven years after an individual is admitted to the United States as a refugee or asylee

    By that time, they’re likely citizens, and thus disqualified. But fully qualified for all the other benefits due citizens.

  8. Art says:

    Birthright Citizenship, the Constitution

    Sorry — but much ado about nothing — not a burning issue.

    Jobs, taxes, borders, Yemen killing, peace – are issues.

    Think Peace — Art

  9. renfro says:
    @Adrian E.

    I think there can be legitimate dabate whether people who have come illegally to a country and hide from the authorities of that country really fulfill the condition of being under the jurisdiction of that country

    They are really going to have to redefine ‘jurisdiction’ if they want argue that because jurisdiction simply means ‘having legal authority over’ and we obviously have legal authority over anyone in the US except for some diplomatic cases.

    OTOH We could argue we have no authority over them simply because we do not know where they are and because we do not know who or where they are we cant have any real jurisdiction over them….i.e…….they are not known to us so no jurisdiction can be applied to the unknown.

    When they become known to us they would be under our jurisdiction and subject to our laws.
    And then could be deported.

  10. Bill H says: • Website
    @Adrian E.

    If persons who come to this country illegally are not subject to “the official power to make legal decisions and judgments” (which is what “jurisdiction” means) then we cannot deport them. Deportation requires an order from a judge, and they would not be subject to such orders, so… They could not be deported.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @renfro
  11. Bill H says: • Website
    @anon

    Person can be subject to the jurisdiction of more than one government. A citizen of Arizona is not subject to the jurisdiction of California, unless he is located within the state of California, in which case he is subject to the US government, the State of Arizona, and the State of California. He is subject to fines and punishment by California for breaking its speed limits, for littering its streets, and all other California laws, even though he is a citizen of Arizona.

    A person who is a citizen of Mexico, in the US with or without permission, is subject to “the official power to make legal decisions and judgments” of the US government. He may be arrested for murder, for instance, tried in a US court, and sentenced to be imprisoned in a US facility.

    If he has committed crimes in Mexico he can be returned to Mexico and be subjected to “the official power to make legal decisions and judgments” by the government of that country of which he is a citizen.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Avery
  12. MarkinLA says:
    @Bill H

    Deportation requires an order from a judge

    Only because we have these stupid immigration courts. This can be an administrative process. We deported them long before these courts were created.

    • Replies: @Bill H
  13. MarkinLA says:
    @Bill H

    He cannot be drafted into the US armed services involuntarily.

    • Replies: @Bill H
    , @DL42
  14. MarkinLA says:
    @obwandiyag

    and than 100 blacks, but I still don’t want the illegals here.

  15. What I completely miss in present discussions is one having known ancestors, known through archives, family stories, etc., that created the land in which one lives.
    My family genealogy of both parents in the north of the Netherlands can be seen to go back to around 1650.
    They did not go to some Merkel for benefits, they built up their land.
    The idea that people from, what Trump calls ‘shithole countries’, can come here and benefit from what generations of ancestors created, repugnant to me.
    Three of the farms my great grandparents had, or rented, still exist, though not as farms any more.
    But, both my two youngest daughters have quite other ideas, in their opinion I’ m a racist.

  16. @renfro

    Just the medical care the Netherlands offers does not even exist in the countries where the migrants come from.
    Foreigners living there always have enough cash lying to be able to take the next plane home, in case of a serious medical problem.
    Around 1975 I was in the Malediven, could read the one and only local newspaper.
    Even a rich man there died of appendicitis.

  17. Ace says:
    @obwandiyag

    Let’s hope he stays in Mexico.

  18. Ahoy says:

    Having a country is the paramount issue, everything else is secondary. Communism hates countries, nations, cultures. The left is outright communism. Liberalism is the disguise to make it palatable to the Americans. The goal is to establish itself as the only power on earth as monstrous dictatorship,

    An early socialist, Norman Thomas, gave the signal and direction. https://twitter.com/jenniferword/status/1056962352183173120

    Globalism is the current trade name of communism. Hides under the name of democacy, also. The type of democracy where you are free to say what I tell you.

    I hope America will not experience what the Russians did from 1917 to 1954. If you don’t love your country you lose it. That goes for everything else, also.

  19. @obwandiyag

    One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.

    Which is why Mexico is such a paradise.

    (Mexicans do not much like negroids, btw.)

  20. @Art

    As long as there is birthright citizenship there will be no real border.

    • Agree: Moi, Realist
  21. KenH says:

    The left are such blowhards and hypocrites. During Obama’s reign they celebrated his blatant disregard and disrespect for the Constitution’s power limits and separation of powers since it was a dead white male construct that impeded “progress.” Now that Trump is using his executive power to restore an originalist and common sense interpretation to the 14th amendment while unwittingly helping the white majority the rabidly anti-white left has fallen back in love with separation of powers while intoning about the chains of the Constitution.

    Jus Soli was only for emancipated slaves and their progeny following the civil war and was never intended to apply to illegal aliens from all over the third world or Chinese and Arab Muslim maternity tourists.

    What Trump and hopefully SCOTUS need to do is make this retroactive to 1975 so the Democrats would lose about ten million voters and we can starting booting people out of here.

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  22. Aside from the globalist cretins that run National Review, who of course want to have their bread buttered by corporations, the worst display of The GOP Incorporated may be seen by this vile blog in my state known as Bearing Drift. These cretins carry the water for open border donors. They were part of Eric Cantor’s political staff and of course, he went off to DAVOS and a lobbying job paying him 12 million or so.

    Today one of their lobbyist lawyer (a labor union lobby no less) is squealing about the need for Birthright Citizenship.

    It doesn’t matter if you point out to these nitwits that if they really are conservative… and they aren’t really.. it is just convenient… that an influx of poverty walking across the border will put paid to any baloney they spew about small government. See the posts concerning the welfare benefits we provide above.

    I am about to finish being concerned about the US… let the stupid polyglot boarding house collapse.

    • Replies: @Fred steadman
  23. An extremely relevant SCTOUS case to this topic is Elk vs. Wilkins from 1884- Even more relevant than the Wong Kim Ark case that keeps getting mentioned.

    It involved John Elk, an American Indian born on a reservation, and whether or not he was a US citizen by birth, since (obviously as an Indian) was born within the confines of US territory.
    Here’s a quote from wikipedia: “The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.”
    SCOTUS said the following: exact quote “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.” Therefore Mr. Elk, being at least in part subject to a foreign jurisdiction at birth, his tribal nation, was not covered by the 14th amendment.
    That’s why it took an specific act of Congress in 1924 to grant Indians US citizenship.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  24. Avery says:
    @obwandiyag

    {One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.}

    Quite true.

    But one of those ‘blobs’ had/has the ability to create more wealth and prosperity than – take your pick 10X, 100X,…. – of your non-blobs.

    That is why the harder, longer, and better working Mexicans trek into United States by the millions, instead of staying in Mexico and working harder, longer, and better there.
    That is why Mexico, despite its hard working proles, is a corrupt, dysfunctional country mired in poverty and crime. That is also why most of Latin America is the same.

    There is no caravan of 1,000s of Americans walking to Latin America.
    There is no caravan of 1,000s from Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, Germany,…..
    Figure out why that is.

    • Replies: @Realist
  25. TheOldOne says:

    “One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.”

    Thanks for letting us know.

  26. Avery says:
    @Bill H

    {Person can be subject to the jurisdiction of more than one government. A citizen of Arizona is not subject to the jurisdiction of California, }

    Illogical argument.

    Nobody is a, quote, ‘citizen’ of Arizona, or California, or any of the other 48 states.
    One is a citizen of USA.

    US also allows dual-citizenship, which is a bad thing in my opinion.
    But you cannot be a citizen of Arizona, because Arizona is not an independent country.
    You are subject to the laws/government of a given state if you are a resident there or passing thru, as the case may be.

    But only to the extent that those State or local laws do not violate the Supremacy clause.
    So your argument using comparison of Arizona or California to Mexico is bogus.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  27. Unlimited illegal immigration is the tool of the extreme left ie the Bolsheviks ie communists ie Zionists to destroy America in their goal of a Zionist NWO.

    • Agree: Druid
  28. MacHeath says:
    @obwandiyag

    And yet a third of my contracting work consists of tearing down what illegal Mehican laborers have done and redoing it correctly.

    • Replies: @Anthony Aaron
  29. @Art

    “Sorry — but much ado about nothing — not a burning issue.

    Jobs, taxes, borders, Yemen killing, peace – are issues.”

    Maybe not an issue for you, but plenty of those lawfully resident in the US are having their earnings and job security arbitraged away by the teeming masses willing to undercut them and, to add insult to injury, they are expected to pay the freight for government benefits for those who partake in those rather than contribute to the economy. Then there is crime degredation of our civil society; the US is inarguably a less harmonious and safe place than it was even 50 years earlier, not to mention before the 1965 Immigration Act and all the “enrichment” it has brought us. In other words, things identified by you are actual issues, on your list, hat are severely negatively affect by unrestrained unlawful immigration, and birthright citizenship is the most potent arrow in that quiver because it opens the door to chain migration in very large numbers by the least desired immigrants.

    If that is not enough, think of the children and grandchildren who were legally here already.

    • Replies: @Art
  30. anon[681] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.

    All the more reason why they should stay home and help build Mexico, they are needed much more there than here. Same goes for all other immigrants — they are all brilliant, capable people, best and brightest, highly skilled as we’re told, which means they are needed much more in their home countries than here. They should all go back and help build their own countries.

  31. @Lucas McCrudy

    Any person present in the territories of the US is subject at the very least to the partial jurisdiction. The key is complete jurisdiction, which goes to the question of allegiance & obligations owed to or demanded by a person to their country of origin versus thei target country. Its not enough for an alien to unilaterally swear allegiance to the US, rather the US must be given the opportunity to decide in advance if that allegiance is wanted, and until then, the people who show up in the US with the unilateral inten to stay in the US are transient aliens who US only owes a goodbye as they are sent packing.

  32. EK says:

    You speak as if the Constitution still matters. There are few solutions.

    First, continuation and escalation of the current civil war we are in, with the Normals winning and suppressing the Communists. Which will include incarceration and execution of traitors. And do not think this would occur if the Communists were to win.

    Second, secession of several states so that the U.S. becomes three or more independent sovereign nations with their individual common interests.

    Third, a dictatorship taking control before the first two options occur. This is essentially our current state and at least 75% of the U. S. population will not realize or resist until it is far too late.

  33. Now Trump has poked his finger in the ugly ulcer that is the leftist effort to flood our country with unwanted foreign paupers. Thus the hysterical reaction. Anybody can see that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with giving citizenship to persons born in the U.S. of parents or a parent who is illegally in the country. The Supreme Court willl indeed rule on this and Trump will win. Case closed.

  34. The real problem is that the “geniuses” who draft Constitutional amendments never make them specific enough! They need to be idiot-proof!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  35. wayfarer says:

    “One man’s transparency is another’s humiliation.”

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams

  36. dearieme says:

    Doesn’t this post simply show that THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE AMENDMENT MADE A PIG’S EAR OF IT.

    I’m all for using originalist arguments to clarify ambiguities and obscurities, and to knock all sorts of left-wing arguments on the head, but it’s surely going too far to propose that the plain words of the amendment be replaced by those that someone might wish the drafters had written instead. If you do that you’re partaking in the deeply dishonest arguments that gave the country Wade-Roe.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  37. That’s why it took an specific act of Congress in 1924 to grant Indians US citizenship.

    BINGO! Why would we need an act of Congress to make the red man a citizen if the 14th had already done that.

    Plus:
    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…

  38. @anon

    … they are all brilliant, capable people, best and brightest, highly skilled as we’re told, …

    Absolutely, at least that’s what Fred Reed tells us* and he’s always right …, right?

    They should indeed be sent home as a kind of Marshallissimo Plano para Mehico. Top Priority!

    .

    * Part 2

  39. @GeorgeWash

    The real problem is that the “geniuses” who draft Constitutional amendments never make them specific enough! They need to be idiot-proof!

    They didn’t anticipate so many idiots. How could they possibly know?!

    BTW, this wasn’t drafted by our founders – only the first 10, the Bill of Rights, was. Amendment XIV was enacted in 1866.

  40. Agent76 says:

    Allot of folks miss understand what the 14th Amendment and what it states and what it really means. Now, you can for yourselves like others who I have shared this with before.

    13th Amendment – Amendment XIII

    Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii

    14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen = SLAVE

    Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a “citizen of the United States”, as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called “citizens of the United States.” In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.

  41. The Pilgrims claim to America is based on Anchor babies. The Pilgrims were illegal-alien boat people, that’s why they instituted birthright citizenship: so they could start having anchor babies who would be legals.

    European colonizers, land in a country, start having anchor-babies, then think they own the joint.

    GOOGLE & CLICK THIS

  42. wayfarer says:

    “Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it.”

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain

  43. @jilles dykstra

    Your daughters have most likely judged you on the money… In 1650, there was no Merkel to go to and besides, she would have been in the kitchen, barefoot and heavily pregnant with her umpteenth child, having lost a dozen or so already, largely due to poor diet, bad hygiene and overwork to support her overtly pious, yet brazenly lustful hudband, the Dutchman.

  44. Just a word on native Americans.

    Most did not want to be part of the US and the long battles fought over treaty violations make that clear. That upon being born to a specific nation was by definition — born outside the jurisdiction of the US.

    Which of course is why native americans have standing on issues of treaty violations to this day. prior to 1923, any native american would have go through the naturalization process. Though the very suggestion raises doubts about the numerous intrusions into native american territory and forcing policies on them at the point of a weapon to abide by US mandates.

    Ohhh hate to introduce so boring a concept as context.
    —-

    No. The amendment was not intended as a position of being merely born in country. Ones parents had to have been US citizens to begin with. Green card holders, etc. are not citizens of the US. And the provision concerning jurisdiction is uniquely applicable to former slaves and free blacks, under the jurisdiction, of the US — literally.

  45. @Blind_understanding

    WORLD MAP color-coded by birthright-citizenship

    https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

    — NOTICE THAT: Almost all the NEW World grants birthright citizenship, and almost all the OLD World denies birthright-citizenship!

    REASON: The people who run the NEW World need birthright citizenship to justify their own right to be here. The European conquest was only a few hundred years ago – when their ancestors arrived as illegal-alien boat-people, had anchor-babies, and stole the land from the native American Indians.

    • Replies: @Jack Hammer
  46. Ahoy says:

    Communism=Socialism=Liberalism=American left=GLOBALISM.

    When you wake up, enjoy with your coffee.

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/VoteRedToSaveAmerica?src=hash&lang=en

  47. D. K. says:
    @Avery

    Professor Avery, renowned constitutional scholar at “The Unz Review”:

    “Nobody is a, quote, ‘citizen’ of Arizona, or California, or any of the other 48 states.
    One is a citizen of USA.”

    ***

    The “Citizenship Clause” (i.e., opening line) of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, at issue here (inter alia):

    “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.”

    ***

    You Constitutional Textualists, Originalists and Strict Constructionists sure do know your shit, Professor Avery!

    • LOL: OEMIKITLOB
    • Replies: @Avery
  48. allis says:

    For a succinct explanation and history of the 14th Amendment, see the following:

  49. Realist says:

    So, here’s hoping that President Trump will follow through and issue his Executive Order, and then let the ACLU and far Left howl and the wimpy Republicans wail.

    I doubt that will happen. Trump is using this to get the base out. After next Tuesday this will die. If Trump had intended to honor many of his campaign promises he could have done so 10 minutes after he was sworn in.

  50. Realist says:
    @Art

    Jobs, taxes, borders, Yemen killing, peace – are issues.

    This issue is about borders.

  51. @dearieme

    The very word “subject” had a different sense back then. A king had his “subjects.” In modern usage, a subject would actually be an “object.” The amendment is written in present-centered tense and form. The men who wrote it and debated it were dealing with the present-day issue of manumitted slaves, not pondering how to deal with birth tourists or expectant mothers crossing into States which didn’t even exist back then. For that matter, the States, not the federal government, regulated immigration at the time, which would rule out “birth tourism” as a vehicle for citizenship entirely.

    Same with “regulate,” which was commonly used way back when in the sense of “regularize.” As in, Congress has power to make commerce uniform–a free trade zone–not establish minimum wages or work hours.

    SCOTUS could say “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is up to Congress to determine. This would be a healthy tonic for a country that likes to brag that it’s a democratic republic.

  52. More importantly, Trump, in taking this position, has maneuvered the Left into defending the institution of anchor babies.

    Getting your opponents to attempt to defend the indefensible is definitely a winning strategy — if only you can find opponents dumb enough to fall for it. Trump has.

    • Replies: @Iberiano
    , @Corvinus
  53. Realist says:
    @Avery

    Figure out why that is.

    IQ

  54. Walter says:

    If an Anglo adolescent claims he’s a she, why can’t he be believed? Ok, he is politely “agreed with”…and let us continue…and suppose a Negro adolescent claims he’s white – is he too not gifted by right to be believed?

    Ergo “black” becomes “white”, thus liquidating all potential “racism”, right?

    And a bit further too, a Mexican girl with Negro parents claims she’s an American Anglo boy, and we’re all obliged to politely ignore reality…

    Some might claim that such “reasoning” is delusional, and they’d be correct.

    If Truth is whatever anybody says, then who says what Truth is, and does Truth even exist?

  55. @Blind_understanding

    The “native” American Indians stole land and enslaved other “native” American Indians and therefore have no moral high ground. What goes around, comes around.

  56. Ahoy says:

    @ Realist

    “I doubt that will happen”

    I agree. The last President who believed that his office represented a real State got a bullet. The reality is that Amerca is run by a private company. The UNITED STATES of AMERICA,Inc., year of incorporation 1876, place Delaware, domicile Washington, D.C.

  57. @jilles dykstra

    … in their opinion I’ m a racist.

    Congratulations!

  58. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Mental gymnastics.
    If native American Indians, who were born in the US to US resident parents and subject to American jurisdiction, were not included in the 14th Amendment, how could anyone not born in the US and not naturalized by the US plop out a child that is an American citizen?

    • Replies: @D. K.
  59. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Same with “regulate,” which was commonly used way back when in the sense of “regularize.”

    “Regulate” means to control by rules, from late Latin regulat- ‘directed, regulated’, from the verb regulare, from Latin regula ‘rule’. It always has.
    “Regularize” implies a change in the way rules are enforced for a particular reason.

    • Replies: @Walter
  60. Art says:
    @The Alarmist

    Maybe not an issue for you, but plenty of those lawfully resident in the US are having their earnings and job security arbitraged away by the teeming masses willing to undercut them and, to add insult to injury, they are expected to pay the freight for government benefits for those who partake in those rather than contribute to the economy.

    Sorry – the 330,000,000 strong American Republic is not in grave danger from anchor babies.

    This is a FAKE issue.

    Hordes of grownups crossing the border is the problem.

    Art

  61. anon[707] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adrian E.

    I agree USA has no Jurisdiction over human decision to travel or to domicile in any governed place on earth.
    UN recognizes humans have the right to travel.
    Human rights are included in the person of every living human from birth the death.
    Human rights are inalienable. (see the declaration of Independence)
    No nation and no organization has sufficient authority to claim jurisdiction over or to alienate to man his human rights. It is exactly human rights that make war, a crime against humanity.

    Nations can protect the exercise of human rights, but religions, nations or other organizations do not have sufficient authority to deny a human his or her inalienable human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and right to self determination(including right to travel and to decide his or her domicile); man’s inalienable rights are vested in the structure, functions,social being and moral soul of human mankind? Human rights are superior to the authority of all nations, all religions and all organizations. Everyone every where must recognize human rights without exception. It is the duty of living humanity to restrain any infringement that challenges the rights of mankind. Living beings are not born with and cannot acquire sufficient authority to alter, deny, limit, restrict, or terminate the rights of mankind; such rights are inalienable. Defending human rights is going to become very, very important as drones and robots come to life.

    @renfro, @Bill H Jurisdiction is layered, hierarchically,
    Human rights the TLD. Universal Jurisdiction, unrestricted, inalienable to all human beings everywhere.
    Religious Rights
    International International Jurisdiction
    Nation State or Tribal jurisdiction
    Sub National or Sub Tribal Jurisdictions

    citizenship is another question, I don’t think citizenship is a human right, its a grant in recognition of a commitment.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @MarkinLA
    , @anon
  62. Walter says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Read text of Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo and note date of ratification… Predates 14th amendment, Comrade…and affirms Mexican and thus Indian rights…(you’ll also have to read Spanish and Mexican law too, and some International Law)

    Since Treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo predates and affirms Mexican Law it is the controlling law…so by construction the general domestic law affirms Indian’s civil rights via Treaty Law, not necessarily merely the 14th amendment.

    Of course we now see that it is claimed that treaties mean nothing…

    …………….

    About “Regulate”… Also means well-equipped, and in well regulated militia, a militia with plenty of weapons or sufficiently standardized quality and caliber…some sort of uniformity… Webster was a contemporary of the author’s of USC…read meaning of “regulate” in 1800 Webster’s Dictionary…

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  63. wayfarer says:

    Inner-City Migrant Mob, Headed for Beverly Hills, California!

  64. MarkinLA says:
    @Blind_understanding

    They didn’t own the place because of anchor babies. They owned the place because they took it from the Indians and you are lucky they did as I doubt the Indians would have much use for you.

  65. @renfro

    You left out a BIG benefit that these wetbacks love to get — EITC. It provides a Refundable Tax Credit which b h o — in one of his caring moments for US Citizens and Taxpayers — strongly urged these illegal aliens to file for — not just for the current year, but for as many years back as they could.

    If married and filing a joint return, you can claim the credit if your earnings are less than $54,884 and for 3 or more qualifying children — a Refundable Tax Credit of $6,431.

    Another big possibility is SSI — supplemental security income — which I personally heard a lot of russian immigrants in WA state brag about getting, claiming that they were ‘depressed’, and therefore unable to work. And what was the cause of their depression the SSI department worker would ask? Why — they’re no longer in their homeland — russia — from which they VOLUNTARILY left to come here.

    Filipinos used to pull the same scam in SEA all the time …

    These illegal and other alien communities learn of these benefits through their networks of fellow countrymen/women who are gaming our system to the max year in and year out.

  66. @MB

    So … just what is it about United States Citizens and US Sovereignty that you don’t like? What about the concept of borders common culture and values seems to get your goat? And why not just have those folks stay where they are and, like we did in 1776, FIGHT for their FREEDOM from OPPRESSION and CORRUPTION in their own countries?

    We do NOT need such cowards in our United States of America … ever.

    Why would you see our country destroyed — slowly, like the story of the frog in the pot?

    And, of course, are you willing to open your wallet to pay the outrageous taxes that it takes to have these folks present? And what of chain migration — these folks would bring in their entire extended families.

    • Replies: @MB
  67. @obwandiyag

    I strongly disagree with your assertion — having worked in the construction industry in Southern CA and SEA for more than 25 years — and seeing first hand the worthlessness of hiring these wetbacks.

    Sure, they may be a few dollar$ cheaper — but, as the old saying goes, ‘You get what you pay for.’

    My partner(s) over the years hired a lot of blacks to work for us as carpenters and masons … they were the hardest and best working folks I ever saw — and they had a great work ethic — to do it right the first time.

    We used to pay union piece rates in LA for carpentry and masonry work — so much money per unit of performance — and, even in 1983, our lead carpenter used to make $2,000 per WEEK — the equivalent of $10,000 per WEEK in today’s money —— as a production carpenter. The same with the rest of them — and jousters who regularly earned more than $1,800 per week in those days. Masons were earning more than $350 per day for their efforts — quite a lot of hard work (lifting 32+ pound cement blocks is hard work), but they did it and did it perfectly the first time.

    Some subs showed up on the job with wetbacks — and from personal experience, I can say that 6 wetbacks at $6 an hour aren’t worth a damn compared with a US Citizen worker at $30 or more an hour.

  68. Avery says:
    @D. K.

    Professor D.K.:

    Show me please a passport, accepted for international travel from, ooooh I don’t know,…..Arizona.
    Or California, or any of the other 48 states.
    You know, something that says “Nationality ARIZONA”, or “Nationality CALIFORNIA”, like the passport below.
    Also present evidence that each of those 50 States are members of the United Nations, in addition to ‘United States of America’.

    Let’s see if you really know _your_ s____ or don’t.
    Then we can debate what the meaning of ‘citizen’ is in the context of the 14th means.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  69. Druid says:
    @obwandiyag

    So work hard in Mexico! Isn’t that why it’s such a paradise!

  70. @MacHeath

    Amen to that … seen it too many times.

    I signed on as a journeyman carpenter on a HUD project in SEA … a ‘prevailing wage’ job with all sorts of special ‘minority set-asides’ and ‘minority requirements’ — i.e., mexicans. Not many blacks there – about equal to the mexicans.

    Anyway … my entire work was to correct what these wetbacks had ‘done’ at least once — sometimes twice — and they still hadn’t done it correctly or according to best practices so as to get a building inspector to pass it (it had already failed inspection once).

    Those guys were worthless — I’d have given anything for a good crew of blacks — or some white guys from CA …

  71. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Progs are a funny bunch. They call for Indigenous Peoples Day and then say Diversity is great. But it was Diversity that destroyed the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Take Latin America. Spanish imperialists conquered, spread disease, carried out genocides, and committed mass rape. That led to Euro-Indigenous diversity. And then, Spanish, Portuguese, and Jews imported millions of black slaves into the Americas. More diversity. So, Diversity has been the bane of the indigenous peoples.

    In North America in the 19th century, more immigration meant more diversity and less territory for the indigenous peoples who got squeezed out of their lands by expanding Diversity of Anglos, white ethnics, Jews, and black slaves. America used to be All Indian but mass immigration of whites & Jews and importation of blacks made North America more diverse, and that led to the destruction of indigenous or original peoples.

    So, it is about time that White Americans stop immigration and denounce Diversity. It would be a Moral Imperative. Proper assessment of White Guilt in America must address the fact that the main victims of White/Jewish Immigration were the Indians. Therefore, because North America was once Indian land, white folks must stop further immigration-invasion and help Indians to regain their footing in their ancestral turf. It was bad enough that Indians lost the lands to whites. There is no reason for them to lose it to immigration-invaders from all around the world. Since white people took the land from Indians, their main moral duty should be to stop further invasion and be nice to Indians. Since the whites didn’t take America from peoples around the world, all those non-whites have NO MORAL CLAIM on America. So, on the issue of ‘white guilt’, whites may feel some measure of guilt toward Indians since they took land from them, but white Americans need feel NO GUILT toward the world since whites didn’t take land from non-whites around the world.

    The main question is, “Does America belong to the American Indians or to the World”. The answer is it belongs to the American Indians. Since whites took it from the Indians, white priority must be to defend America from further invasion and revive Indian pride and prestige. But in our crazy Ellis-Island-centric nation, there is this crazy notion that whites have some moral obligation to open the US to all the world? But why? If America once belonged to Indians and if whites took the land from the Indians, then white moral obligation should be to prevent further invasion of Indian lands and to help Indians regain footing in their ancestral-sacred homeland. (If Jews had a right to regain their sacred homeland after 2,000 yrs, then American Indians have a right to regain territorial security and resurgence of pride in America, their sacred-ancestral homeland. That calls for end to immigration-invasion and promoting Originality over Diversity. While American Indians can’t take back America like Jews took back Israel/Palestine, they can regain pride and stand proud once again IF all Americans recognize Indians as the Original and Truest owners of America as a ‘sacred spiritual land’.)

    [MORE]

    Another way to frame this question is, “Does America belong to the Indians or to the Jews?” If we believe that the original claimants of America are the Indians, then we must address the fact that mass-immigration-invasion has been bad for Indians. Sure, it led to the creation of a great nation, but it also led to collapse of Indian folks and cultures. So, if we believe that, in the most sacred and spiritual sense, America belongs to the Indians(who’d been here for 10,000s of yrs before whites and others), then Americans must prioritize the matter of “Is it good for the Indians?” And future policy must be predicated on IIGFTI. Since mass immigration-invasion and Diversity destroyed the Indians, we must stop further mass-immigration and Diversity-mongering. We must favor demographic defense and originality(over diversity because diversity wiped out much of the original peoples).

    But the US is currently under the rule of “America belongs to the Jews”. So, “Is it good for the Jews?” or IIGFTJ is the modus operandi of US policy. Because Jews figure that more non-white immigration-invasion will lead to further Diversity that makes for weaker racial-national solidarity among goyim who will be divided among themselves, they see it as being GOOD for Jews.
    But if American Policy is calibrated to favor and serve Jews, it means the US belongs mainly to Jews. But why? What claim do Jews have on America? Whites didn’t take it from Jews. If anything, Jews were co-conquerors of America from the Indians. So, if anything, Jews must share in the White/Jewish Guilt of Imperialism and Genocide of the Indians. (And since Jews also took part in the slave trade, they must share in Slave-Trade-Blues. Imperialism + Slave Trade = Diversity. Celebrating Diversity is to apologize for imperialism.) Indians do have ancestral claim on the Americas. They were the original peoples. But by what right do Jews claim America as theirs? Why should American Policy be predicated on IIGFTJ?
    Indeed, they have even less rightful claim than do the Anglos and Germanic who’d done most to found and settle the nation. There were Jews from the beginning of America, but the mass influx of Jews came later. So, Jews have no special claim on America. Granted, Jews can say they contributed a lot to American wealth and enterprise and science and culture, and that’s all true. But that is still not an organic claim. After all, China and India have invested a lot in Africa and built the economies there, BUT they can’t make claims on those nations that ‘spiritually’ belong to black Africans.

    Now, for a long time, the main claimants of America used to be Anglos and whites, and for good reason. The argument was, “Sure Indians were here first, but they were savages and there weren’t too many of them. So, the America as a modern nation is a white European creation.” In other words, American Civilization was not something that the Indians had built but was stolen by whites. Whites built it from scratch. So, on that basis, whites could have legitimate claim and pride of ownership. And this was a sound argument. But Jews took over media, academia, & Narrative and spread the notion that Whites are the Most Evil People. So, white pride in anything is evil. It’s even controversial to say “It’s okay to be white.”

    So, for the time being, whites are best off using the Indians as moral shield. Whites must promote Originality over Diversity. Indians were the original peoples of America. So, if White Guilt is to be properly conceived, it must address the fact that Originality was largely wiped out by Diversity(the product of imperialism) made possible by whites(who opened the New World to Diversity-Invasion). So, in order to properly atone for their historical ‘sins’, it is time for whites to end immigration-invasion and diversification of the Americas and focus on restoring Originality of the Indian folks. It may be the most effective way to scalp the globo-homo yarmulka.

    The moral discourse can pit one form of White Guilt against another form of White Guilt. The White Guilt of “Is it good for the Indians?” or the White Guilt of “Is it good for the Jews?” In the Americas, the white guilt of “Is it good for the Indians?” is surely more legitimate since America was taken from the Indians who suffered a kind of ‘genocide’. In contrast, whites using their ‘guilt’ to serve Jews makes NO SENSE in America because whites didn’t take America from Jews. Furthermore, Jews participated in the ‘genocide’ of the Indians along with whites. Jewish merchants sold guns to whites to kill Indians with. Jewish banks, along with Anglo ones, financed Manifest Destiny, a lebensraum plan against the Red Savages. Emma Lazarus called on more Immigrant-imperialists.

    So far, many on the Right have regarded ‘white guilt’ as anti-white, but it can be made pro-white. By properly assessing American History, whites can make a moral case that ‘white guilt’ must prioritize what is good for Indians since they were the Original Peoples with a sacred tie to the land. Also, as white expansion destroyed so much of pristine wilderness, white guilt must also commit itself to restoring more natural habitats in every state in the Union. But there is no sound ‘white guilt’ argument in favor of serving Jewish supremacism or allowing immigration-invasion from around the world. After all, whites didn’t take America from most peoples around the world. Also, non-white ancestors around the world played no part in the building of America.

    The real problem of American PC isn’t ‘white guilt’ per se. It is the perversion of ‘white guilt’ to favor peoples who have no moral claim on White Americans at the expense of peoples who do have a legitimate claim on ‘white guilt’. No people have a more valid moral claim on White Guilt than do the American Indians, the Original people, BUT the current ‘White Guilt’ is manipulated to make white support “Is it good for the Jews?” and Diversity-invasion of non-whites who are coming off to leech off the achievements of another people on a land taken from the Indians. Imagine if you killed someone, but your ‘guilt’ is milked not to make amends to the aggrieved family of the victim but to offer endless ‘compensations’ to OTHER people who weren’t victimized by you. ‘White Guilt’ is now milked not by the aggrieved calf but by weasels and leeches from around the world.

    It’s a matter of Valid White Guilt vs Corrupted White Guilt.

    • Replies: @KenH
  72. D. K. says:
    @Curmudgeon

    “If native American Indians, who were born in the US to US resident parents and subject to American jurisdiction, were not included in the 14th Amendment, how could anyone not born in the US and not naturalized by the US plop out a child that is an American citizen?”

    You mean like all of those pre-1965 European immigrants to the United States– including a lot of the direct ancestors of a lot of us commenting on this topic at this Web site– who produced native-born American children, before residing here long enough to become eligible to be naturalized and, thereby, to join their own children as American citizens?

    For the record, although American Indians at large were not included under the 14th Amendment’s “Citizenship Clause,” because they were members of sovereign tribes, those Indians who made themselves subject to federal jurisdiction– and thus taxable, etc.– were granted citizenship, long before the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

  73. @anon

    To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the UN have to enforce the “human right” to travel?

  74. D. K. says:
    @Avery

    Again, for the special-needs commenters:

    “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.

    There is no debate about what the “Citizenship Clause” says or means regarding state citizenship, based upon residency. The fact that the sovereign states have ceded the authority to regulate international relations, including international travel, to the federal government does not mean that Americans are not also citizens of the respective sovereign states in which they legally reside. Your embarrassingly ignorant statements, above, were in direct contradiction to the unambiguous language of the “Citizenship Clause” of the 14th Amendment, as quoted, yet again, above.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Avery
  75. Guess I’m dense but, I still don’t know what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. The folks who wrote up this amendment are presently dead so we can’t question them as to their “intent.” As to “jurisdiction” the US government has “jurisdiction” over ANYONE who commits a crime within the US, whether foreign born or not. We attempt to extradite people to the US to stand trial if they commit crimes within the US and then split for home. That’s “jurisdiction”.

    The anchor baby phenomenon standing on its own is a no-brainer. Clearly an abuse of the system. Thanks to Trump we are now confronted with the question “How exactly is citizenship defined?” The more I read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment the more it becomes neither fish nor fowl.

    Forget “Executive Orders” which sound like edicts from George III. Change Section 1 so it makes more sense. It’ll be a long hard slog but it’s worth it

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  76. @Walter

    “Since Treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo predates and affirms Mexican Law it is the controlling law…so by construction the general domestic law affirms Indian’s civil rights via Treaty Law, not necessarily merely the 14th amendment.”

    Treaties & the Constitution usually operate on the principle of “last in time” being the governing instrument. 14th Amendment would trump the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

    The link below points to an abstract of a nearly 400 page paper on the “last in time” principle, the application of it by the courts to conflicts in law, the academic criticisms of it, and a thorough defence of it:

    https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol80/iss2/3/

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Walter
  77. @The Alarmist

    My bad, the paper itself only spanned 73 pages; I misread the page numbering.

  78. KenH says:
    @Anon

    The main question is, “Does America belong to the American Indians or to the World”. The answer is it belongs to the American Indians.

    No, any territory belongs to those who successfully fight to keep it by repelling invaders and interlopers. The Indians at least put up a fight but time and demographics were against them. The white race of N. America isn’t even fighting for to fight is racist, intolerant and most importantly, anti-semitic.

  79. Bill H says: • Website
    @MarkinLA

    News flash. An “administrative process” involves a judge.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  80. Bill H says: • Website
    @MarkinLA

    “He cannot be drafted into the US armed services involuntarily.”

    Neither can citizens, who most certainly are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @MarkinLA
  81. renfro says:
    @Bill H

    Wrong.

    The legal definition of ‘jurisdiction” also includes ‘territorial jurisdiction”.
    If they are here they are within our territorial jurisdiction.

  82. DL42 says:
    @MarkinLA

    “He cannot be drafted into the US armed services involuntarily.”

    This is false. Almost all males including most classes of immigrants (including undocumented) are required to register for Selective Service, and can be called in case of a draft. In fact having registered for SS when first arriving is a requirement for naturalization.

    https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Who-Must-Register/Chart

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  83. @Bill H

    Good grief . . .

    Draft registration exists for a reason.

  84. MarkinLA says:
    @anon

    There are no such thing as human rights. All rights derive from the barrel of a gun. You have rights because you fought to get them and you have to fight to keep them.

  85. renfro says:
    @obwandiyag

    One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.

    I tend to agree…most of the Mexicans I see in my area are hard workers.
    But that really isn’t the issue, the fact they are Mexicans or “brown people” isnt really the issue either for reasonable people.

    The mistake both left or right have made is making it “racist” .

    Its an issue of long term economics ……economic cycles are as certain as death and taxes.
    So what does it look like when we hit an economic down turn and have 12 million extra people in need of jobs, food, medical care, and government help.

    It wont be pretty.

  86. @D. K.

    This is the kind of wordplay that abuses language and meaning in context.

    The there is no citizen reference for people living in states. It’s residency.

    I am a resident of said state. Citizenship which now enforce via the civil war — refers to ones national allegiance.

    Your word game falls once the US Constitution in placed in the actual frame for which it is designed.

    That design is the stated clearly in the Preamble:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    We the people (citizens of the US) –

    not citizens of the world
    not citizens from Mexico, Spain, France, Great Britain . . .

    citizens of the US and those citizens alone . . . for their posterity . . .

    who’s posterity . . . those of we the people — which people — citizens of the US. If you are not a citizen then your child born here isn’t bequeathed anything –

    in short those here illegally — cannot and are not citizens

    The constitution simply does not apply.

    As a courtesy, the US recognizes their humanity as people (eye roll) and extends privileges and rights merely as a courtesy. Mistaking that courtesy as a constitutional mandate has been quite useful to the word games you are playing.

  87. MarkinLA says:
    @Prester John

    They don’t have the ability to draft a foreign national against his will. If he is in the process of applying for citizenship, we still may not draft him but it he would likely never be a citizen and would likely have to leave the country.

    Change Section 1 so it makes more sense. It’ll be a long hard slog but it’s worth it

    The idea is to get something done in this century. Just like amending the Constitution to remove or modify the Second Amendment won’t go anywhere, how many states does it need to kill a ratification attempt (13) let alone how many Senators it takes.

  88. MarkinLA says:
    @Bill H

    Yes, they can be and the can be prosecuted for it. Remember Muhammed Ali.

  89. MarkinLA says:
    @Bill H

    No it doesn’t it just requires the opinion of a bureaucrat similar to a traffic court commissioner. No court dates, no “trial”. You get two weeks to provide documents while you are in detention. You can contact anybody you claim to be relatives to help you obtain papers or contact any county clerk. At the end of two weeks, no papers bye bye.

  90. While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase ”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation01.html#1

  91. @obwandiyag

    ‘One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.’

    The polite assumption seems to be that you are in fact black.

    Let’s grant that. If so, how would you be in a position to comment critically on the work ethic of either Mexicans or Anglos?

  92. MarkinLA says:
    @DL42

    And do they register? And if they don’t what would happen? If we try to prosecute them they can simply leave the country and there is nothing we can do.

  93. anon[707] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Votes (defend mankind against tyranny) vs Guns (impose tyranny against mankind)

    @ Alarmist and Markin if you are correct, and all rights are both denied and derived from the barrel of a gun, does that not imply that those without guns have no rights?

    The blood of mankind, powers the engines of leadership

    All rights are defined by those with the guns?

    Guns turn the leaders of nations into gang leaders and nations into gangs?

    When humanity is armed, humanity chooses when humanity is unarmed, leaders choose.

    How many votes does it take to defeat a gun?

    Unless the guns of humanity are always blazing, there can be no democracy.

    Government is not a system of control but instead is a measure of the relations between the power vested in the masses and the power available to those who demand to be everyone’s leader.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  94. Avery says:
    @D. K.

    {Again, for the special-needs commenters:}

    Pleading about yourself in this forum in order to be treated with consideration is impolite and in bad taste.

    {Your embarrassingly ignorant statements, above, }

    There you go again projecting, in a desperate attempt to escape the hole you have dug yourself into.

    [The Constitution of the United States
    Article. I. - The Legislative Branch
    Section 2 - The House
    ........
    No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
    Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
    elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. ]

    [Section 3 - The Senate
    No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and
    been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected,
    be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. ]

    Read the Constitution from the beginning.
    Or maybe the 14th superseded Article I of the Constitution?
    What is your learned opinion Prof?

    • Replies: @D. K.
  95. Iberiano says:
    @Colin Wright

    Exactly. He came at just the right time. Trump, oddly, has some things in common with the (philosophically) radical left of the 60′s. He has the balls to ask “why?” Why the UN? Why forces all around the world? Why NOT talk to the Palestinians or the Russians or Koreans.

    Why anchor babies?
    Explain all you liberals.

    He came at the right time, because the cauldron wasn’t hot enough until after 8 years of Obama, and the last decade of ramped up anti-white and anti-male rhetoric, globalism being shoved down our throats, illegals murdering and killing (DUI) indiscriminately. Colleges and schools going crazy, trannies…society out of control.

    He needs to start calling it the Illegal Invasion from Central America, and referring to them as invaders and intruders. Plenty of white, black and even Hispanic voters (like my family) appreciate a strong leader who defends our borders. The stronger he acts and looks, the more the other side realizes he’s serious and it works. Granted, they really don’t care if anyone gets killed, but he has made it clear that this is an invasion.

  96. I’d like to consider limiting immigration, but you guys are such imbeciles, I am immediately prejudiced against the concept–by you, and your utter stupidity.

    • Troll: Colin Wright
  97. MarkinLA says:
    @anon

    When an all powerful deity shows up on Earth and informs us about our human rights, then let me know.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  98. SafeNow says:

    As a Calif. homeowner, I agree. Immigrant tradesmen lack the training and skills. And besides the proficiency issue, there is a difference in conscientiousness; the work ethic seems to be to get it basically right; get it close enough. Another problem is medical front-office gals. They have to be bilingual to be hired. This considerably narrows the hiring pool, and thus, I must deal with a less adroit, less courteous, less organized, etc. person. It does not help me at all that the “nurse” knows Spanish. It’s as if the nurse job requirement is to be a good bowler. Calif. is ahead of the rest of the country in the above, but other places are catching up. Example: The NY limo company…the recent disaster. It was basically a limo, operated by basically a driver. The mgt. was thinking “close enough.”
    This is our future, I fear. I am pessimistic. As Burgos of Harvard wrote, We wanted workers, but we got people.

  99. @Stonewall Jackson

    You don’t need to worry about some imaginary welfare that we’re handing out till it illegal aliens because we are not. I work for five years with the Department of Health and Human Services. there is no such programs available for anybody but the baby themselves and it would not cover anything listed above other than food in temporary health care they do not get tanf.

    Right-wingers act as if liberals want open borders when that is the farthest thing from the truth. Liberals simply don’t want little kids in cages and neither do Republicans I suspect. I’m sure the toothless rednecks that make up trumps base don’t give a shit however I don’t consider those people Republicans I consider them neo-fascist

    • Replies: @Stonewall Jackson
    , @anon
  100. @KenH

    What Trump and hopefully SCOTUS need to do is make this retroactive to 1975 so the Democrats would lose about ten million voters and we can starting booting people out of here.

    Ex post facto application, through an executive order that clarifying or changing a previous interpretation of the 14th Amendment, is not only impractical but illegal. However, one has to start at some point in time. This could also apply to the newly born kids of long term permanent residents. It would be hard to challenge such an order on legal grounds if it were to become effective at the time of its signing.

  101. @Fred steadman

    Yes we are handing out welfare to illegal aliens. They qualify for it via their anchor babies or with the bogus claim of being an asylee.

    And you don’t want open borders… really? Seems you want to eliminate ICE. And by who do you ever want to send back their own country? Everyone comes from a s hole country. And I suppose you support ending Birthright Citizenship then, right?

    I consider you what the Four Chan boys called a Non Player Character. Meaning a moron.

  102. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “The very word “subject” had a different sense back then. A king had his “subjects.” In modern usage, a subject would actually be an “object.””

    Would you offer the requisite examples in support of your statement, rather than make an assumption and market it as being true?

    “The men who wrote it and debated it were dealing with the present-day issue of manumitted slaves, not pondering how to deal with birth tourists or expectant mothers crossing into States which didn’t even exist back then.”

    Which is exactly why, alleged barrister, that the Founding Fathers enabled future generations to debate these issues as they materialized.

    “For that matter, the States, not the federal government, regulated immigration at the time…”

    Patently false–the regulation of immigration was a matter for the federal government. Any efforts to regulate immigrants where Congress had regulated—even complementary efforts—were unconstitutional.

    “SCOTUS could say “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is up to Congress to determine. This would be a healthy tonic for a country that likes to brag that it’s a democratic republic.”

    Then, using this metric, only Congress has the authority by way of legislation or by way of constitutional amendment, NOT by executive order, to settle once and for all birth right citizenship.

  103. Walter says:
    @The Alarmist

    Treaty continues to exist now and the 14th amendment did not repeal it but added to it. Freed or escaped Negro slaves went to Mexico prior to 1848 and of course in many cases joined Indian Nations – these people are accorded full protection under Treaty HG. Treaty and 14 A add together, one does not dissolve the other, but they build new law cohesively.

    Treaty covered inhabitants of about 1/3 of Mexico…

    Of course Law generally is now ignored, being eclipsed by ukase as is natural in a Revolutionary moment, a zuswang or singularity in History.

    In practical terms the idea that both the Treaty and the Amendment are problematic is agreed.

  104. D. K. says:
    @Avery

    ***

    Read the Constitution from the beginning.
    Or maybe the 14th superseded Article I of the Constitution?
    What is your learned opinion Prof?

    ***

    Idiot boy, when the Constitution is amended, the amendment changes the Constitution. The language of the amendment becomes the “supreme Law of the Land,” while any original text that was changed by the amendment becomes a proverbial dead letter. If you had been in Professor Jay’s Constitutional Law class with me, thirty-five years ago, perhaps you would know that basic fact, by now. Then again, perhaps you were not even alive yet, back when I was formally studying Constitutional Law?

    https://www.law.uw.edu/directory/jay-stewart

    • Replies: @Avery
  105. anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fred steadman

    You don’t need to worry about some imaginary welfare that we’re handing out till it illegal aliens because we are not.

    You’re a LIAR

    LA County spends over a billion a year on illegals and the overall estimated cost in the U.S. is $113 billion per year

    and whether you call it “welfare” or “food stamps” or anything else its the same damn thing

  106. anon[428] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    One Mexican does more work, works harder and longer and better, than ten of you blobs.

    so why are they coming here? mejico should be a paradise instead of a shithole

  107. Ahoy says:

    @ KenH

    Your comment on the dot. Succinct!

    This being the case all we have to do is grab a bucket of pop corn find a comfortable spot on the couch and watch Oprah.

    All the rest things, big or small, will be taken care by him.

  108. @MarkinLA

    He did; many people just didn’t like what He had to say.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  109. MB says:
    @Anthony Aaron

    What doesn’t we get about sarcasm?

    The whole charade at the moment is, as always, a distraction from the plain language and context, but what else is new? The constitution has been burnt toast for a long time.
    cheers

  110. Avery says:
    @D. K.

    {Idiot boy, when the Constitution is amended, the amendment changes the Constitution.}

    Which amendment changed this wording ‘an Inhabitant of that State’ of Article I Section 2 or 3?
    And No genius boy, 14th did not change that wording: it changed something else in Section 2 only.
    You lose, despite your alleged studies in Constitutional Law.

    { If you had been in Professor Jay’s Constitutional Law class with me, thirty-five years ago, }

    Wow !
    Impressive beyond description.
    Of course, the legendary Professor Jay.
    Who hasn’t heard about him
    Did you also learn the following Constitutional terms at the lap of your dear Professor Jay 35 years ago, boy?

    Idiot.
    S___.
    Special needs commenters.
    Ignorant.

    Or maybe it’s delayed regurgitation of praise-words you heard from your dear Professor addressed to you, while you were supposedly studying something or other.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  111. @obwandiyag

    It is not a matter of work ethic but the Aztec Red Indian scalper genes that predispose the Mestizo/Cholo to a different hormonal and biochemical predisposition.

    What difference does it make how hard-working the Mexican is when their kids attack middle-class hapless passerby Anglo to their barrios in Phoenix?

    Also, Mexico is the way it is mostly because of the Racial Caste System of Criollo White Supremacy from which Red Indians flee.

  112. @anon

    …Because Mexico is run by a syndicate of whites who own the economy and pay the Red Indians and poorer Mestizos what they decide…which is little.

    Same as the Brahmin run India.

  113. @anon

    The USA admiration for hard work continues to baffle me.
    I admire those who are doing what they’re supposed to to at leisure.

    There is another thing, in 1982 I was at Disneyland LA, in a camper.
    Got into a talk with a USA neighbour, explained he was just back from Mexico, adjusting canning machines, what he did each year, ‘because the Mexicans do not know to do it themselves’.
    What was, or still is, so difficult at making canning machinery run, I have no idea.

    But in other countries it is not different, I know a Dutch engineer, each year touring Syria, not the last years, I suppose, adjusting installations for weighing lorries.

    We Dutch invented the fluit freight ship, a sailing ship, we did not like hard work, at the end of the 17th century or so.
    It could transport the same load with half the crew.

  114. Yee says:

    What a sad world we live in…

    Poor people hate, not sympathetic, towards other poor people, because they have to fight over table crumbs thrown to them.

  115. D. K. says:
    @Avery

    What have you done in life that would impress Professor Jay, or anyone else, Avery?

    For the past century and a half, plus a few months, the 14th Amendment has controlled who may become an American citizen– and whoever became an American citizen, whether by birth or through naturalization, also was a citizen of the state in which he legally resided, at any future point in time. No Amendment ratified after July 1868 has changed that unambiguous declaration of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment, commonly known as the “Citizenship Clause.”

    Your argument, above, that the use of the word “Inhabitant” in Article I of the Constitution, in laying out the requisite qualifications for serving in the United States Congress, prevents American residents of the sovereign states from being citizens of their respective states, rather than mere “Inhabitant[s]” of them, is ignorant and idiotic in the extreme.

  116. MarkinLA says:
    @OEMIKITLOB

    I didn’t hear it and nobody that I would believe did either.

  117. Corvinus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Then I would imagine that Fox News will come out against Michelle Malkin, who herself is an anchor baby.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  118. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus

    Not really, her parents were here on a visa for her father to get medical training according to Wikipedia. Anchor babies parents are here illegally. Why lie when so easily caught?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  119. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA

    “Not really, her parents were here on a visa for her father to get medical training according to Wikipedia.”

    Her parents, NOT American citizens, obtained an employer-sponsored visa, but had a child on our soil. Michelle fits the description to a T! In this manner, it was an advantage for her parents to secure citizenship and legal residency. It makes no difference if her parents were here legitimately, the fact remains they had a child who automatically received citizenship. She is an anchor baby. Ironic, considering that she is against automatic citizenship for temporary foreign workers, which was the status of her parents.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  120. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus

    You are a moron since this is the exact case that the Supreme Court decided for the child born of Chinese legal residents in 1898 for Wong Kim Ark.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  121. I watch WRAL and to call David Crabtree a midwit is to insult the intelligence of midwits.

  122. @anon

    Why are the beaners coming to America? Well for the gibs of course.

  123. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA

    “You are a moron since this is the exact case that the Supreme Court decided for the child born of Chinese legal residents in 1898 for Wong Kim Ark.”

    OK, in what specific ways, Cochise? Spell it for us. Make the comparison between Ark and Malkin.

    Regardless, those who oppose birthright citizenship do NOT delineate between legal aliens and illegal aliens. If you are a foreigner here in the United States, and have a child, he or she ought not automatically receive citizenship. So why are you seemingly making the exception here?

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  124. George says:

    Ok, but what are you going to do with children born in the US to non citizen parents? Will they be stateless? The illegal alien caravaners won’t care, but it will stop middle class Chinese.

  125. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus

    The issue is not what you or I think but what the Supreme Court had decided. Since her case matches the court’s prior ruling exactly and had not been overturned, there is nothing to argue. The parents in both cases were legal resident aliens.

    She should not have US citizenship according to me and I have consistently shown myself to be smarter than the idiots on the court. However, my vote doesn’t count.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  126. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA

    “The issue is not what you or I think but what the Supreme Court had decided.”

    Of course the issue is what you and I think! Trump says that an executive order can eliminate birthright citizenship, thus overturning the Supreme Court. Legal scholars say that a Congressional law, or a constitutional amendment, solve the problem.

    “Since her case matches the court’s prior ruling exactly and had not been overturned, there is nothing to argue. The parents in both cases were legal resident aliens.”

    HOW does this catch match the court’s prior ruling exactly? Spell it out. Be specific. If you are so “smart”, then say it.

    “She should not have US citizenship according to me and I have consistently shown myself to be smarter than the idiots on the court. However, my vote doesn’t count.”

    Of course it counts! If there are enough members of the House and Senate who believe that a law can be enacted to eliminate birthright citizenship, then every vote matters on this issue. Maybe you are not that smart after all…

  127. MarkinLA says:

    Trump says that an executive order can eliminate birthright citizenship, thus overturning the Supreme Court.

    This is NOT what Trump means. Trump is clarifying what “under the jurisdiction” means. He knows full well that a child born to American citizens in America would still be a citizen on birth.


    HOW does this catch match the court’s prior ruling exactly? Spell it out. Be specific. If you are so “smart”, then say it.

    That is self evident, both sets of parents were legal residents at the time of the birth.


    Of course it counts! If there are enough members of the House and Senate who believe that a law can be enacted to eliminate birthright citizenship, then every vote matters on this issue. Maybe you are not that smart after all…

    Unlike you I am smart enough to know what power my vote compared compared to that of a Supreme Court Justice, let alone a member of Congress.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.