In recent remarks President Trump is considering an Executive Order to stop birthright citizenship by non-citizens on U.S. soil. For decades illegals coming from south of our border and people flying into the U.S. by Visa from other parts of the world had their babies here making their child an instant citizen of the United States of America. 

The President makes it clear during an interview with Axios that the insanity has to stop, he went on to say “it was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.”

“This is ethnic cleansing. This is an attempt to whiteout America’s history and heritage as a nation of immigrants. And it’s unconstitutional,” said Jess Morales Rocketto, chair of Families Belong Together.

“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” Trump said. “It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

No doubt the mass of people in caravans south of our border today may have lead him to his present thinking of outlawing birthright citizenship. Many no doubt think his action would be illegal and that the courts would shut down his actions of an Executive Order.

However, President Trump has an Ace up his sleeve that millions don’t know about and it had been sent to him many months ago by myself via email after I wrote a piece about our 39th Congress and what they actually said in their own words concerning who actually qualifies as a U.S. citizen. This transcript from Congress is linked directly to our national archives and is for your review and rules on who actually qualifies as a U.S. citizen by the 14th Amendment.

If the President writes the Executive Order banning birthright citizenship by non-citizens it will no doubt end up in court, but as I said Trump has an Ace up his sleeve and this could go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and finally settle this once and for all.

First, let us review what three of our past Founder’s said long ago:

Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin

Date: May 20, 1808 

[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law. 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78 

Categories: Judiciary 

Date: Unknown 

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

James Madison who has been referred to as the “Father” of our U.S. Constitution had this to say about allowing people to immigrate to United States:

“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 abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]”

39th Congressional transcript on what qualifies one as a U.S. Citizen

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. [1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with themIt is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the “extent and quality” of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. [4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

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…[6]

Reference source: Congressional Globe (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg.html)
[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (view actual page)
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291

Phil Davis served in the USAF from 1973-1993 and most of it was working in Command and Control at Strategic Air Command (SAC) and United States Air Forces Europe USAFE, while his two best assignments was working at HQ 8AF Command Center from 1984-1989 at Barksdale AFB, with a one year assignment serving with the 485 Tactical Missile Wing, Ground Launch Cruise Missiles in Belgium during 1986-1987. Phil has been writing on political issues since 1993, including a run with the Examiner prior to 2013. It was just after that when he started his own blog where he has written on various subjects about a myriad of topics related to our country's political environment and the rediscovery of American Patriotism.

LET THE SILENT VOICES BE HEARD! Comments will show on social media

Loading Facebook Comments ...