Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results. While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen. The Court’s interpretation also has national-security implications. Accord, ante, at 56 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent. See Vance v. Ter razas, 444 U. S. 252, 259–260 (1980). (Emphasis mine)
Both the Civil Rights Act [of 1866] and the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.
Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority.
The Supreme Court majority in its decision "repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text. Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.
I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship. Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. - Justice Thomas
The most unqualified woman; who doesn’t even know if that is what she is; to sit on the Supreme Court; ignorantly thinks she’s being snarky!
“Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott,’” Jackson wrote.
The Court’s decision effectively grants automatic citizenship to nearly every child born on US soil, regardless of the parents’ immigration status.
The Constitution was never intended to extend citizenship so broadly and said the majority’s reading rewards what he described as “birth tourists”, people who temporarily travel to the United States to give birth so their children acquire American citizenship.
The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.
He ended, “If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”
As shown in Part II, supra, a person who is born in the United States is made a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment only if that person was also “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And that phrase means subject to the jurisdiction of the United States alone and not “subject to any foreign power.”
He reiterates the same rule that applies to Americans who have a child overseas.
A great many persons who are born here to illegal immigrant parents fail this test because at birth they are automatically made nationals of their parents’ native country and, as a result, incur duties to that country. This means that they are “subject to a foreign power” and are thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Emphasis mine)
The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to right the wrong of the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling, that blacks had no Constitutional rights in America. PERIOD! It says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. The phrase in the 14th Amendment came from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." This phrase destroys the "anchor baby" myth, that because you happen to have been born in the United States you are automatically a citizen. To be "subject to the jurisdiction", you must have political allegiance to the United States and agreed to following its laws! Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders who violated 8 U.S.C. § 1325 - U.S. Code - Improper entry by alien, whose allegiance is to the country they left. There are thousands of foreign diplomats in this country. Can you with a straight face say if they have children, they are American Citizens? A foreign citizen of another country visiting here for vacation would be the same, which makes ridiculous the practice of Chinese women coming here to have babies so they can be American citizens. How fair is that to people who follow the rules, wait years and spend thousands of dollars to come to our country? The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners." And despite leftists unconstitutionally making it up as they went along, Congress has established very clear laws on immigration and penalties for violating them. Should we just start to ignore speed limit laws, rob banks, etc? If you can choose to disregard some laws, what about the rest?
See anything fishy here? 🤔
To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended in the Message, would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty. - Alexander Hamilton, The Examination Number VIII, [12 January 1802]
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. - James Madison from Naturalization, Feb. 3, 1790
"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights − to freely participate in our political community," Roberts wrote. "The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land.' We keep that promise today."
Roberts wrote that the amendment returned the nation to the understanding of citizenship adopted at the founding, known as “right of the soil,” where children born on U.S. soil were generally U.S. citizens.
It “was soil – not blood” that would determine citizenship going forward, Roberts wrote.
Emmerich de Vattel, born 1714, died 1767, was the author of The Law of Nations in 1758.
Our Founders were inspired by many enlightened authors. Building on the ideas of John Locke, Vattel, and George Mason, who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Jefferson primarily authored the Declaration of Independence, THE seminal statement on human rights, in just 17 days! Furthermore, it can be argued that the first, second, and fifth paragraphs of the Declaration can be shown to be inspired by Vattel’s writing and Vattel’s take on Locke’s writings. Madison is credited as the father of the Constitution. Baron de Montesquieu in his “Spirit of the Laws,” created the idea of three equal branches of government. Madison built on the concept of a government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches.
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…
Therefore, when debating the Constitution, Vattel’s book was familiar to the Founders.
Vattel’s most famous work consisted of the application of the law of nature to nations. He understood the law of nature as accessible by human reason, according to which both individuals and political societies are capable of understanding their rights and obligations. Introduced into the American colonies in the 1760s, Vattel’s teachings about international law and sovereignty were not only carefully studied by American statesmen but applied by them in the international arena.
Fun fact: It was discovered centuries after his death; George Washington had some overdue library books. One of them was The Law of Nations.
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
This totally contradicts the ludicrous principle of jus soli, or right of soil, which actually came from the days of kings. Every rock, tree, turnip grown in a field, and you, belong to the king, because he claims ownership of everything in his kingdom! Vattel, and our Founders believed you, as your God given right as a human being, were not property of a king. Therefore, your children are citizens of whatever country of which you are a citizen.
Roberts unlike Jackon, is not stupid. He knows this and lied!
Not the first time that a Supreme Court candidate masqueraded as a “Conservative” and “Constitutionalist” as did Roberts. Her most recent majority opinion on mail in ballots being able to show up whenever after election day drove a stake in the heart of election integrity. Now this.
An inciteful thought from my wife. “The Supreme Court gave our enemies the keys to our destruction just as Benedict Arnold tried to give America to the British!”
Benedict Arnold was a brilliant military genius. His superiors were jealous of him and promotions were withheld. His wife, who had loyalty to Britain, convinced him to side with Britain where he would be appreciated. Plans were made for him to turn West Point over to Britain, which would have given them control of the Hudson River Valley. Fortunately, the plan was discovered, but Arnold got away.
What is the difference between this abomination or selling military secrets, etc.?
Does the Department of Justice have the nerve to call it what it is? treason?
Our Constitution has wisely distributed the administration of the government into three distinct and independent departments. To each of these it belongs to administer law within its separate jurisdiction. The Judiciary in cases of meum and tuum, and of public crimes; the Executive, as to laws executive in their nature; the Legislature in various cases which belong to itself, and in the important function of amending and adding to the system. --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:129
meum and tuum, which means “mine and yours”
Previously, Roberts legislated from the bench re-writing Obamacare. This time the court actually rewriting the 14th Amendment. Clearly, acting above their pay grade! President Trump’s job as head of the Executive Branch is enforce the Constitution and law as it is written! He is well within his duty to ignore them!
According to PolitiFact, Section 1001 of Reid’s bill, entitled “Basis of Citizenship Clarified,” said that children born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil should not become U.S. citizens.
A press release issued by the Nevada Democrat’s office at the time expounded upon the idea, suggesting the bill “clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen.”
Under this notion, PolitiFact wrote, the incentive for female illegal immigrants who are late in their pregnancies and seeking to give birth on U.S. soil would be quashed.
Block all entry of pregnant foreign nationals, especially known enemies of the U.S. from entering the U.S with the intent of delivering a now Supreme Court approved “birthright citizen!”
And this:
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.