Birthright Citizenship: What’s That About?

Constitution_14th_Amendment_citizenshipThe Daily Signal brings us a great resource explaining the debate over birthright citizenship in 90 seconds.

The issue is hot right now because the bombastic Donald Trump has managed to bring the issue of illegal immigration (i.e. invasion) to the forefront of American politics, and one aspect of that is the anchor babies which the pro-illegal immigration crowd are trying to use as a lever to allow invaders to get amnesty and remain in our country after having broken our laws.

I believe the U.S. Constitution does establish birthright citizenship, and I believe it rightly does so.  Under normal, legitimate circumstances, why would someone born in America not be considered an American citizen? But like so many things in this fallen world, it has come to be abused and perverted.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

I believe the right response to birthright citizenship right now (after we lock down our borders and deport all those who are here illegally) is to alter it slightly so that birthright citizenship remains in effect only for the children born of people who are in this country legally to begin with. You could make a case for requiring that automatic birthright citizenship on American soil be contingent on at least one parent being an American citizen, and I’d have no problem at all with such a requirement, but at a minimum, in this time of gross abuse of birthright citizenship, it only makes sense that citizenship be only for the children born of people who are in this country legally to begin with

If you are in this country illegally, then you shouldn’t be here…and you should not have been here to give birth to a child in our country. If you had been abiding by our laws, you would not have an anchor baby American citizen.  Why allow you to get away with something you obtained illegally?

There is no need to punish people who played by the rules, abided by our laws, and did it right. There is also no need to reward invaders and lawbreakers for their contempt for the rule of law.

UPDATE: I have since become aware of additional information that has led me to change my mind on whether the Constitution establishes birthright citizenship as we know it today. Even if it did, the points I made regarding people in our country illegally would still be valid and stand.



This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/ Publius Huldah

    Yes, it has certainly come to be perverted. Here is the Truth:

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

    “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 purpose of this Section was to extend citizenship to freed slaves
    and to protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic
    God-given rights.

    This Section does not provide that illegals who invade our Country
    and drop a baby here are automatically the parents of a US citizen.

    The key is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: Consider the French
    ambassador and his lovely young wife stationed in Washington, DC. She
    gives birth to a child here. Her child was born here. But is her child
    “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? No! The child is
    subject to the same jurisdiction as his parents: France.

    Consider the American Indians: Sec.1 of the 14th Amendment did NOT
    confer citizenship on American Indians. They were not “subject to the
    jurisdiction of the United States” – they were subject to the
    jurisdiction of their tribes.

    An illegal alien who invades our Country is in the same status as the
    French Ambassador’s wife. The baby she drops here is “subject to the
    jurisdiction” of the Country she left.

    So the 14th Amendment does NOT confer citizenship on babies of
    illegals born here – just as it does not confer citizenship on the
    babies of foreign diplomats stationed here.

    Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, US Constitution, Congress may make laws deciding how people become naturalized citizens.

    But Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship status on babies born here of illegal aliens.

    This is important.