Babies citizenship for constitutionally recognized illegals? Scotus says no

Imagine the following scenario: A pregnant woman will become laboured, suffer while passing through your property, and stumble onto the lawn. You notice, provide assistance, EMT arrives and the time is short so she gives birth on site. But mothers and babies are safe and healthy, and everything ends well, right? Except one.

The infant was then born in your land, so he is said to be part of your family now.

It's ridiculous, I know. But of course, this is similar to the situation in the United States under the “basement citizenship” standard, perhaps based on the 14th Amendment.

The issue has recently attracted a lot of attention as President Donald Trump issued an executive order challenged birthright citizenship. The response is also predictable, and mainstream media is disgusting Trump's position. They apparently support the current situation where illegal foreigners or pregnant tourists traveling to our country just before her due date will give birth to our soil. The joke is with us: children are American citizens.

But was the 14th Revised Framer really intended this outcome? It turns out they didn't. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue – 127 years ago. Unfortunately, this “precedent” has been ignored.

A proper case is Trump's aforementioned executive order, which denies illegal parents to citizenship to children born in America. Several cases have been filed against it, and the judge blocked it in at least six instances. (Note: some of the cases have been consolidated.) In response, the administration asked the Supreme Court to “permit” the order to be enforced while the cases are awarded. And we hope that the High Court will see the facts, but let us do that ourselves.

What text and common sense say

Section 1 of the constitutional provisions in question, Amendment 14, is very simple and I'm reading.

Every person born or naturalized in the United States is subject to that jurisdiction and is a citizen of the United States and the state in which they live.

However, as with the “tracking” of the Supreme Clause, some people behave as if the “jurisdiction” requirement above does not exist. Consider the following Associated Press in the March 11th article on this issue:

Trump's legal team argues for this amendment… it simply gives citizenship to those born under US jurisdiction – and they say jurisdiction is not always the same as that born in American soil.

Of course, anyone familiar with logic knows that if the “jurisdiction” was always the same as “born in America's soil,” then it didn't include a jurisdiction line. It is a qualifying round and is qualified.

What the court said

There is no need to speculate too much about the meaning of the phrase. First of all, the Supreme Court has already issued a related decision in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). However, not only is it a little known case, but the prominent aspects of the opinion are often obscure. Consider WKYC's 2018 “fact check”: The station is written by Wong.

Kim Ark was a US citizen born in the late 19th century to two Chinese immigrants living in the United States. He left the country and was initially denied re-entry due to laws restricting immigration in China.

Kim Ark challenged the ruling, once in the Supreme Court, where the judge ruled that Kim Ark was born in American soil and therefore a US citizen, despite both parents being foreign.

That's all about it too. So control supports the current situation of Anchor Baby, right? It's not accurate. And the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) spoke for the rest of March 19th.

That's because his parents were legally resident in the United States when they were born here.

Ilri then cited the actual ruling.

Chinese born from the United States, the rest of the Chinese emperor, and Chinese who have not become citizens of the United States are entitled to protect and owing to US loyalty and debt, as long as the United States is permitted to live here. And “it is subject to that jurisdiction…”

Obviously, this means that if you live in the United States without your permission, the 14th Amendment will not apply.

The original intention is bent

Of course, even more important is the original intention of the 14th Amendment framer. After all, the Constitution is truly the only precedent that is important. It also found that Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the Citizenship Clause, exceeds Wong's ruling. While presenting the amendment to Congress in 1866, he first emphasized that he was merely repeating what he already considered to be American law. He then said it about the 14th

Of course, we do not include people born in the United States, those born in the United States, those who belong to an alien, family of ambassadors, or those who are recognized by the US government, but we do include people from all other classes.

In other words, the outcome is the same whether it's just Wong's decision or Howard's explanation.

The illegal Arien children born in American soil are not citizens.

The only controversy is whether children were born in the United States by “foreigners” who are legally resident in our country. The court in 1898 said yes. The 14th Amendment author clearly said no.

The Sophist endures

So what do the advocates of the current situation of Anchor Baby say accordingly? Now, along with misrepresenting Wong's verdict, WKYC also wrote the words of the senator and took Howard's words.

The intention/belief has not been added to the text of the amendment itself and has no actual legal authority.

This is refined. Ah, the argument is technically true. However, the “jurisdiction” line has legal power, and Howard's words help explain what it means.

The purpose of the 14th revision is also useful here, and this is not an inexplicable truth lost in the mist of time. Postwar amendments were made between the states to ensure that freed slaves were not denied citizenship and their accompanying rights. It was not formulated to allow illegal aliens and birth tourist scammers to turn the system into a game. This is clear.

But whether the Supreme Court governs the obvious, or supports the forgotten and most lewd constitutional perversion, is another matter. Ultimately, making fact-based decisions rather than fashion requires principles and courage. And, sadly, these qualities do not characterize many of our judges.