…“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, “domiciled”) residents was a citizen.
The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens.
The misunderstood policy of birthright citizenship provides a powerful magnet for people to violate our immigration laws and undermines the plenary power over naturalization that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil.
Here is part of the NATIONAL REVIEW article by Andrew McCarthy:
…My friend John Eastman explained why the 14th Amendment does not mandate birthright citizenship in this 2015 New York Times op-ed. In a nutshell, the Amendment states: “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.” The highlighted term, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood at the time of adoption to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign. To take the obvious example, if a child is born in France to a married couple who are both American citizens, the child is an American citizen.
I won’t rehash the arguments on both sides. With due respect to our friend Dan McLaughlin (see here), I think Professor Eastman has the better of the argument. As I have observed before, and as we editorialized when Donald Trump was a candidate (here), this is a very charged issue, and it is entirely foreseeable that the Supreme Court (to say nothing of the lower federal courts teeming with Obama appointees) would construe the term jurisdiction differently from what it meant when the 14th Amendment was ratified….
…in 1866, the actual author of the post-Civil War Amendment – Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan – explained the real purpose of what become the 14th Amendment.
Unfortunately for liberals, it was only for granting citizenship to recently freed African slaves, not foreigners. In fact, it didn’t even include Native Americans.
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Sadly, the 14th Amendment is a wildly-abused amendment, as it was also justification in the Roe V. Wade abortion case. Clearly, not enough Americans know what the amendment actually was intended for.
President Donald Trump said Friday that he’s considering using military resources to finish construction of his long-promised border wall instead of relying on Congress to fund the project through the Homeland Security Department’s budget.
He also wouldn’t eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown if Democrats continue to confound his efforts to appropriate money for the project on the U.S.-Mexico border.
‘We have two options,’ he told DailyMail.com aboard Air Force One as he flew from Billings, Montana to Fargo, North Dakota. ‘We have military, we have homeland security.’
He was asked specifically about using the Army Corps of Engineers as a taxpayer-funded construction crew.
Trump said he would prefer to fund the ambitious construction ‘the old-fashioned way – get it from Congress – but I have other options if I have to.’
Here is an update due to some discussion on my Facebook for the skeptics. This first article excerpt from THE HILL dated December 2011:
The Obama administration won’t be bound by a gun-control ban in the $1 trillion spending bill for 2012, the president said Friday.
The funding provision for the federal Health agency says that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The language aims to ban taxpayer dollars from supporting gun-safety research.
“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law…..
….It’s not an official ‘Federal Budget’. It’s an Omnibus bill…not a Budget…He outsmarted them again…Congress basically screwed themselves by not passing a Budget…
Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.
This is another one of those big Porkulus Bills, like they gave Obama for 8 years. This is not a Budget..
An Omnibus Spending Bill may have some ‘instructions’ as to how the money will be spent…but Obama ignored them. He spent the money, or didn’t spend it, however, he wanted to. And Congress didn’t do a thing about it! Because they couldn’t..”
As some suspected Trump had an “Ace up his sleeve”. Sunday on Social Media, the President verified that he had indeed kept his promise to stay focused on the “Building the Wall”….
Democrats View of Trump’s Game
Donald’s Real Game
The morning after Trump signed the ominous OMNIBUS bill, a friend and I were very disappointed, to say the least. Below is our conversation… and let me say, I was wrong and not in tune with what this business man was after. And he was after getting his way because he loves America. My buddy is the orange boxes, I am the light colored boxes:
And it is that “what if” at 10:53am that got me thinking that Trump just may have bitch-slapped that evil grin on Schumer’s face off! And speaking for myself as an Evangelical conservatarian, I am reinvigorated — greatly.
How I now see it… The Omnibus Bill is a temporary spending procedure to keep the government funded for a while (I don’t know how long? 6-months? a year?). It was a mess of funding every pet project the Dems wanted to continue to fund, like Planned Parenthoood, NPR, etc. The bill may have even increased spending in some of these areas. But again, this is a t-e-m-p-o-r-a-r-y fix, and can be revisited in the future. It has to be.
A REAL BUDGET passed by the Congress and signed into law has to allocate money specifically to earmarked results — so if monies were said to go to the “a”, they couldn’t then be used for “a(i)”. So the monies allocated to these projects are more “malleable,” so-to-speak. Especially if the executive “declares” something that this office has power over. Congress would have a much rougher go at it, as they would have to collectively agree on what they have authority over, and THAT ain’t happening anytime soon.
So Trump’s Monday Tweet was as follows:
The “M” me thinks (hat-tip to Rush Limbaugh BTW) is the military. What that Tweet shows are the two requirements needed to use the military funds and know-how to build a large portion of the wall. A humanitarian emergency (crime, rape, drugs, etc. — related to the border and at the border) as well as a national security threat (terrorists being able to easily enter through our Southern border).
And walla, the ARMY Core of Engineers can get to work.
And he knew this from the get-go.
So 5-hours before he signed the bill he said he was going to veto it. Naw, that was a head-bob and weave. After he signed it he said never again. That is because he got what he wanted/needed.
The graphic to the right is for me: “Oh ye [me] of little faith.”
I could imagine this happening behind closed doors:
Schumer and Pelosi and others are in a private “backroom” gloating, having martinis and a few smoking cigars. Schumer’s aid walks in unannounced and comes over to Schumer, he bends down and whispers something in his ear. Schumer looking perturbed, being the egotistical ass he is, out loud says they put an iron-clad aspect in the bill to not pour concrete with the 33-million they allocated to “Trump’s wall.” He was shooed from the room.
* laughter from the back of the room is heard* and murmurs of how they will make sure unions get the job… and then the 33-million will only get them a couple miles of fence with all the overtime.
A few minutes later Pelosi’s aid walks in unannounced and rushes over to Pelosi and whispers something in h-e-r ear. She laughs and shoos her out of the room. Schumer asks what that was about. Pelosi said that Trump is planning on using the 33-million to grade the land for the wall to prepare the building he will access from the military budget.
Laughter and small talk turns to heads tilting and serious debate. Aids are told to bring in precedence and a legal team.
What was once a happy and giddy time soon turned into wailing and gnashing of teeth.
My Tweet regarding the 33-million the Dems gave Trump:
Even if the above is not true to the “tee”… it has to be true in some respect. The Democrats got played. And I bet they are pissed! So are the spineless GOPers! (A two-fur one)
Trump strengthened the military greatly, and he can now come at North Korea and Iran with a stronger military and a bigger bargaining chip — and keep China’s ambitions with their Navy to a minimum. And, he gets his wall. AND he routed the Dems. Awesome! I am not worthy:
This was a sad story… one that happens too often. John and Ken discuss Mollie Tibbetts and her murderer, Christian Bahena-Rivera. The media bias in this reporting is touched upon as well.
ALSO, some crime stats here are key to the discussion (PDF), as well as the response to CATO by John Lott.
Here is the very short excerpt and it’s description:
This is just a very short clip of a longer audio (here: ) of John and Ken discussing Mollie Tibbetts and her murderer, Christian Bahena-Rivera. According to the DAILY CALLER, he was employed by a Republican small business owner…
“He worked on Yarrabee Farms, which is owned by the family of GOP official Craig Lang, who was a former 2018 Republican candidate for state secretary of agriculture, according to reports by the Des Moines Register.”
…who may have illegally had him in their employ? However, he was an example of the DACA young… so did he have his temporary papers? I have no idea. This was clipped from the larger audio for use on my post HERE.
Here is the full interview… followed by links to the topical breakdown of it:
Dennis Prager interviews John Zmirak, who is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration.” This was quite an interview. I will be splitting some of this up into topical segments in a bit. But Mr. Zmirak is a guy I would love to sit and have a beer with (a few of em’).
Mind you, to be clear, Reagan didn’t regret “amnesty,” he regretted TRUSTING THE DEMOCRATS who did not live up to securing the border ….. sound familiar? Larry speaks with John Heubusch of the Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute:
What Trump Could Learn From The Reagan Immigration Amnesty: The Reagan Amnesty Of 2.7 Million Illegal Immigrants Was Paired With The Promise Of Controlling The Border
Of which I excerpt a portion of:
…In his book, Reagan: The Life, H.W. Brands writes about the president’s interpretation of a 1986 immigration bill at the time.
“Al Simpson came by to see if he had my support,” Reagan recorded in October 1986, shortly after the measure cleared the House. “They have one or two amendments we could do without, but even if the Senate conference can’t get them out, I’ll sign it. It’s high time we regained control of our borders, and this bill will do it.”
The legislation at the time was widely viewed as an enforcement-first measure, said then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who advised Reagan on the matter along with other Cabinet officials.
“It is very definitely a teachable moment,” Meese, the Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow emeritus at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal, when asked how the 1986 legislation might inform President Donald Trump in his negotiations with congressional Democrats on codifying the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), implemented by his predecessor.
The Reagan amnesty of 2.7 million illegal immigrants was paired with the promise of controlling the border and penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants. The legislation was better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, named for its sponsors, Simpson and then-Rep. Romano Mazzoli, D-Ky.
The problem with the 1986 law was that the promised enforcement didn’t occur, but the amnesty did, Meese said….
President Reagan’s Remarks at Signing Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act in Roosevelt Room. November 6, 1986
BREAKING! A family friend sent me info on this, and I was totally unaware… here are some sources of info on this:
Senator Lara’s bill, SB 174, Public employment: eligibility is going to be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on July 3rd This bill will allow “those without lawful immigration status” to hold “appointed civil office”, i.e., ILLEGAL ALIENS may be appointed to city boards and commissions and ”may receive compensation”. This bill started out over a year ago as something related to “public utilities”, less than two months ago it was ‘gutted’ and renamed. ***These positions require one to take the Oath of Office, how can a foreign national, here ILLEGALLY, do that? ***Is the next step to allow illegal aliens to run for elected office? ***These positions would (are) be STOLEN from citizens. ***By authoring this bill, Senator Lana is admitting that the two illegal aliens serving on commissions since 2015 in Huntington Park are doing so UNlawfully! Senator Lara has an office located in the Huntington Park City Hall. Legislators and Committees keep a tally of calls ‘for’ and ‘against’ a bill. Please call to have your voice heard! Judiciary committee 916-319-2334 Assembly members: Mark Stone (D-Chair) 916-319-2029 Jordan Cunningham (R-Vice Ch) 916-319-2035 Ed Chau (D) 916-319-2049 David Chiu (D) 916-319-2017 Chris Holden (D) 916-319-2041 Ash Kalta (D) 916-319-2027 Kevin Kiley (R) 916-319-2006 Brian Maienschein (R) 916-319-2077 Eloise Gomez Reyes (D) 916-319-2047 “The bill would also provide that a person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, is eligible to hold an appointed civil office if the person is 18 years of age and a resident of the state. The bill would provide that a person appointed to civil office, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, may receive any form of compensation that the person is not otherwise prohibited from receiving pursuant to federal law, including, but not limited to, any stipend, grant, or reimbursement of personal expenses that is associated with carrying out the duties of that office.”
All Californians would be able to serve on state boards — even people in the U.S. illegally — under new bill
(LA TIMES) “…The Senate bill would delete the phrase “transient aliens” from the government code and make clear that any person, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, can hold an appointed civil office if they are at least 18 years old and a resident of the state. That would allow any Californian to serve on hundreds of boards and commissions that advice in an array of policy areas, including farm labor, history and employment development….” Senator Lara Introduces Bill to Allow All Californians to Serve on Boards and Commissions — Regardless of Immigration Status
(AUTHOR OF THE BILL) “California’s 2 million undocumented immigrants are a source of energy for our state, and their voices should matter when it comes to policies that affect our healthcare, schools, families, and economy,” said Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). “It is shocking to read the words of fear and exclusion that are still in California law but belong in history’s trash can. The California Inclusion Act is another step toward utilizing the talents of our diverse population and righting a historical wrong.” Undocumented immigrants could serve on California boards under new bill
(SACRAMENTO BEE) “Senate Bill 174 amends existing state law to allow the appointment of any resident over the age of 18 to a civil office regardless of citizenship or immigration status. California law currently states that someone is incapable of holding office if they are not a citizen at the time of their appointment.”
Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National Review, The Washington Times and other media outlets. He is a professor emeritus of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. In this clip, he talks about the beneficiaries of illegal immigration in the U.S. Full talk, from Oct, 2017.
Jeh Johnson screwed up the liberal narrative that nobody was Hitlering before Trump Hitlered all those children into cages by admitting that yes, Obama Hitlered them too!!
[….]
Somewhere there is a journalist contemplating whether to argue that Trump is so evil that he went back in time and forced the innocent peace-loving Obama administration to imprison kids.
Larry Elder brings some sense with common sense studies showing the impact of illegal immigration on workers in black and brown communities. These legal workers are impacted the most by illegal immigration. I include in the audio Cesar Chavev in a 1972 interview calling illegal immigrants harmful to the union he co-founded. Some key articles are these for those wishing to chase down reliable commentary on the facts:
The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates: Black Anger Grows As Illegal Immigrants Transform Urban Neighborhoods. | “A recent study…estimates that immigration accounted for a 7.4 percentage-point decline in the employment rate of unskilled black males between 1980-2000.”
Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers: The Candidates Tell Drastically Different Stories About Immigration. They’Re Both Skipping Half The Truth. | “But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable.” — George Borjas, Harvard economist.
I was told the other day these are jobs that others will not do. Here are some stats on the matter:
“Mark Levin said he was particularly bothered by the claim—made by politicians on both sides of the aisle—that there are so many so-called ‘jobs that Americans will not do.’ Levin mentioned that, according to the Census, 73% of janitors are American citizens, as are 51% of maids and housekeepers, 58%of taxi drivers, 64% of landscapers, 66% of construction workers, and 72% of bellhops, porters, and concierges.” (BREITBART)
Here is a snippet from the aforementioned article:
…But the IG report on the political bias rampant in the Clinton email investigation was released last Thursday and suddenly, this months-old story became the only story liberals are talking about. Weird, isn’t it?
The MRC charts this, with the story getting only 6 minutes of coverage from the “big three” networks combined last Wednesday, then the next day (the day the report was released) it was up to 19 minutes. From there, it was off to the races.
This isn’t a coincidence, this is by design. No journalist is bothering to report the entire story, or many facts of the story. They’re doing what liberals always do – identify the worst-case scenario and present it as the norm. Then they imply that you could be next….
Here is the chart from NEWSBUSTERS article on the story:
