Speaker Paul Ryan: “you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”…

A few months ago, when discussing overall immigration policy, I wrote: “There is no greater disconnect from ordinary Americans -on any singular issue- than the policy positions of Democrats and Republicans in Washington DC surrounding immigration. President Donald Trump is confronting their unified interests.”  The reaction from Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is directly related to this truism:

(Via Associated Press) […] The top Republican tells WVLK radio in Kentucky, “Well you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”

Ryan’s comments Tuesday offered a rare challenge to the president — from his own party. […]  Ryan says Republicans didn’t like when then-President Barack Obama “tried changing immigration laws via executive action. He says “obviously as conservatives we believe in the Constitution.”

Ryan is retiring but the No. 3 House Republican, Louisiana’s Rep. Steve Scalise, said on Fox that he’s glad Trump is considering options. (read more)

It does not go unnoticed that Speaker Ryan never challenged DACA.

It does not go unnoticed that Paul Ryan fully supported the June 2014 house vote for the Senate Gang-of-Eight immigration bill; until Majority Leader Eric Cantor was primaried 48 hours before the vote.

The issue of lax immigration, and the subsequent lack of enforcement, is the cornerstone for the UniParty in Washington DC. It is one of the central elements that isolates the professional political class from the majority of common sense Americans.

For the Democrats, support for open-borders and lax immigration enforcement is part of their overall ideology and fabian world-view.  For traditional republicans support for lax immigration, which allows exploitation of labor, is driven by the Wall Street views of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (President Tom Donohue), and various elements associated with multinational corporate interests (Koch Brothers).

No amount of external political pressure upon DC will change this dynamic.

The only thing that will fracture this entrenched DC ideology is a long-process to dismantle the system that enables mutually beneficial arrangement.

A few perspective examples:

Senator Lindsey Lindsey Graham will likely support Trump’s initiative to end the anchor baby process, or birthright citizenship.  However, tread cautiously, because Graham looks at this issue as a foot-in-door opportunity to force comprehensive immigration reform. There’s nothing altruistic within the “comprehensive.”

McCain dies; Martha McSally has the same view funded by the same benefactor.  Corker resigns; Mitt Romney has the same view funded by the same benefactor.  Paul Ryan exits; Kevin McCarthy has the same view funded by the same benefactor. See the problem?

If President Trump, on our behalf, is going to defeat the “Big Club” on the issues around immigration he will need two essential elements:

♦First, President Trump will need the unwavering support of common sense middle-America.  When I say ‘unwavering’, I mean total and complete support from everyone, anyone, who wants to see immigration law enforced.  Every entity who supports left-wing progressive globalism will spare no expense in attacking him.  The entire planet will align against him.  If you think things are bad now… oh man, we haven’t seen anything yet.

♦Second, POTUS will need to take the same strategic approach deployed in the trade and financial confrontation to new levels of strategy.  President Trump will need to replace everyone within the administration that is ‘Big Club’-sketchy; with extreme prejudice.  The attacks will come from all directions.  Having to deal with a weaponized intelligence apparatus, a duplicitous cabinet, and a complicit DOJ and FBI will make any immigration enforcement/reform effort almost impossible.   Right now, on the issue of immigration, many within the Trump cabinet are allied with the Donohue/Koch ‘Big Club’.

Suffice to say if the Republicans do not gain seats in the Senate and hold the House of Representatives it won’t even be worth starting.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Cultural Marxism, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Election 2018, Election 2020, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Mexico, Mike pence, Notorious Liars, President Trump, propaganda, Refugees, Tea Party, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

665 Responses to Speaker Paul Ryan: “you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”…

  1. Nikita's_UN_Shoe says:

    Quality Assurance is the attribute of a good product. Every manufacturer should have a viable Quality Assurance program in effect to product a – well – quality product. Too bad our U.S.A. laws are not a normal three-step process:
    Step 1.) Congress (both House and Senate) makes the laws and fine-tunes the details of each. Step 2.) Congress delegates Vice-President to forward each law to the U.S. Supreme Court to validate its legality under the U.S. Constitution.
    Step 3. After the Quality Assurance cleanup by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chief Justice forwards the law (bill) to the POTUS for signing.
    Three Branches. They should all have their input during law enactment to reduce serious possible contention blowback.

    The U.S Supreme Court can still litigate contentious decisions in case someone sues because of failure of an existing law that previously went through the three-step hurdles.

    Just my two rubles.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 7delta says:

      Back in the day, Congress was required to state on each bill its Constitutional authority to make that law. I can’t remember when they stopped doing it, but it should be reinstated pronto. Bills weren’t “comprehensive” mishmashes that were 10,000 pages of hiding stuff they shouldn’t have been doing either. “You have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” would have opened a House seat. Decades and decades of these yahoos in Congress have nearly lived and breathed the Constitution into oblivion, which I realize is the goal.

      Pray like everything depends on God. Vote like everything depends on your one vote.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kimberly Moore says:

      If our government officials would operate according to the way the government was intended to work, we would be better off! Progressives have snuck in and seek to legislate from the bench, water down the Constitution and hogtie our laws with red tape and illegal initiatives. Until we root them out and take back education, we are facing an ongoing battle.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Red Tsunami! says:

    You can end it if you stop them from coming in in the first place:

    Liked by 20 people

  3. Gary Lacey says:

    Let me put forth the proposition that Trump could impose an Executive Order citing a moratorium until 2050AD, in the national interest.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Alicia Chavetz says:

      A motion to vacate the chair should be filed today! Ryan not only has shown his willingness to openly oppose the President a week before the midterms but also has exposed himself by putting special interests and donors ahead of U.S. interests.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. LibertyONE says:

    The ESTIMATED cost of babies born here to ILLEGAL aliens is $2.4 BILLION a year. There are approx 300-400 K born EVERY year. Look at the homeless vet’s( est at 40,000) in the U.S.This money could be spent on them AND others . Then add the estimated cost PER YEAR of $134-150 BILLION of taxpayer money expended by the States and Fed gov’t on est. 22 MILLION ILLEGALS now in this country. IF nothing is done , forget about ever having a Republican as president or for that matter a Congress in either House in the VERY near future. As for RINO RYAN , he’s a POS!

    Liked by 7 people

    • Farmkid says:

      A useless POS, …Mr President ‘Tear down his Wall’.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The Phantom Stranger says:

      I think it’s patently obvious that Paul Ryan has no intention of ever returning to Republican politics in the future. He badly wanted to be president at one point. Thank God we dodged that bullet.

      He appears to be following the John Boehner career plan. He’ll make millions as a corporate lobbyist after Congress but will have left behind any chance at having political influence after his term is up.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. Anonymous says:

    Actually, birthright citizenship is unsupported by the 14th Amendment (we’ve just being doing it for years anyway). It can be ended at any time– entirely within executive authority.

    Liked by 17 people

    • Carrie2 says:

      Anonymous, yes it was never made a law and the 14th Amendment was to make blacks real American citizens and nothing to do with anchor babies. The President who is the CEO/EXECUTIVE OFFICER of our Republic and EO as an interpretation of our Constitution and that is real. I knew this but listened to Mark Levin while driving home and he is a great Constitutionalist and states the same thing no need of Congress nor the Supreme Court. Ryan just showed his lack of Constitution facts but then he dislikes our President, so his spouting means ZERO. He is leaving but I would like us to take back the reins and let the hired employees in Congress wake up that we employed them and we will remove those lifetime benefits and yearly salary increases because we did not vote nor authorize them. In any case they in general get rich from outsiders doing what they want.
      So, Ryan, etc., you have no control over any president with an EO to stop anchor babies and we want them removed from our soil with mom and/or papa as they are illegals, PERIOD!

      Liked by 14 people

      • 7delta says:

        I had to think about the EO approach, but despite the meme that SCOTUS has ruled the 14th applies to all children born in the U.S. to aliens, regardless of immigration status or residency, SCOTUS has never ruled on such a case. The proponents of open borders/cheap labor/illegal voting have repeated the lie often enough until people, including lazy Congress critters, believe the 14th Amend tale is true.

        If I get up from here and finish the work I have to do today, I plan to start revisiting thousands of old documents this afternoon to see if I can nail down a timeline of how we got from “there to here.” If birthright citizenship was instituted by the executive branch, based on some flimsy personal opinion by a Justice or some other contrived justification, the executive can reverse it. I know the framers of the amendment didn’t intend to provide blanket citizenship to every baby dropped here. What better way for a foreign enemy to infiltrate, influence and destroy our government and us, from within. We’ll see. Back to work.


        • drljr says:

          “I know the framers of the amendment didn’t intend to provide blanket citizenship to every baby dropped here. What better way for a foreign enemy to infiltrate, influence and destroy our government and us, from within.”

          is also the reason why the President and Vice-President have to be a natural born Citizen of the US or have been a Citizen of the US when the US Constitution was adopted.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Iggy Scott says:

    I agree – unfortunately – with Ryan. I hate the Birthright BS, but it’s in the Constitution, and we don’t have the numbers in Congress or among the people to change it…

    That’s life in a Representative Republic….

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jeff says:

      sorry Iggy, it is not. Read the entire 14th, and then listen to a number of Constitutional scholars that explain that this amendment was written specifically for slaves and their families, to ensure they were considered citizens. Per the author of the amendment, this amendment did not apply to foreigners and even Indians, who were loyal to their tribe, not the United States.

      Liked by 14 people

    • Sayit2016 says:

      “but it’s in the Constitution”

      Ummmmm NO it isn’t!!!!

      Liked by 10 people

      • SharkFL says:

        NO it is not in the constitution.

        Why are British people called Subjects? Because they are subject to the laws of Great Britain.

        If these British people sneak across the US southern border and try to claim American citizenship, the claim is false. Why?

        Because these invaders are subject to the laws of another country. Clear now???

        Liked by 3 people

    • Carrie2 says:

      Iggy, in this case a president can interpret the Constitution, so reread the Constitution and that is completely legal and in any case never made a law so no need of Congress nor the Supreme Court. The EO will be completely legal and no one can say a damn thing about it not being legal.

      Liked by 5 people

    • dagnyshrug says:

      It’s about jurisdiction. “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” People are subject to the jurisdiction of the country where they are citizens. Foreign Nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and by extension, neither are their children. Paul Ryan knows this. He’s just running his mouth trying to stir up trouble one last time before his big exit.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Will Hunt says:

      The court of public opinion on presidential authority to correct this obvious abuse matters little. If Trump issues the EO, and I hope he does, it will be immediately stayed by some liberal ALJ and then fast tracked to the Supremes where there is a majority of actual judges not judicial activist legislators


    • Y’all Know What Time It Is says:

      People who sneak into the country and whose presence is unknown can’t be considered under the jurisdiction of the country. And they certainly should not have Constitutional rights.


    • SWOhio says:

      UMMM the 14th does not support the path of ILLEGAL INVADERS to citizenship – or their illegal infants.


  7. Rob says:

    If you want to know why the border and immigration are screwed up; look to the hidden agenda in Washington DC. Pretty ugly. Sometimes the truth is that way.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Sherri Young says:

    Mark Levin addressed birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment during his show today and did an excellent job of it.

    Well worth a listen. I’ll try to find the Senator Jacob Howard’s explanation from 1866.

    Liked by 7 people

  9. thetrain2016 says:

    Interestingly people still debating the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. Is there any problem about debating the 14th?

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Reloader says:

    On the related issue of weaponized intelligence apparatus … is there any truth to the rumor that VSGPDJT has the assistance of the intelligence organizations of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps others? Due to the trip to the ME that he took in May, 2017?


  11. gman-reloaded says:

    So says Chief Justice Paul Ryan…oh wait…

    Liked by 7 people

  12. peenut07 says:

    What did Senator Jacob Howard really say?

    This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within 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

    Liked by 6 people

  13. Kenji says:

    Ryan’s reading comprehension is for shit. The 14th Amendment couldn’t be more LEGALLY clear … foreigners children do NOT receive citizenship for getting dropped out of the birth canal on our soil.

    Liked by 8 people

    • KittyKat says:

      Imo, it’s worse than that. His misinterpretation misses that the intent of the Amendment was to confer American citizenship on former slaves. Therefore, his misinterpretation is an insult to the progeny of former slaves.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. OmegaManBlue says:

    Can’t wait for this COC yes man to be out of office.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Kenji says:

    The Left loves to say that the writers of the constitution never anticipated semi-automatic weapons of “mass destruction” when writing the 2nd Amendment. Therefore … only flintlocks should be allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

    However, they suddenly forget the “historic” context of the 14th Amendment. That the writers could never have anticipated jet airliners, ocean liners, flatbed trucks … and how easy intercontinental travel has become. In their day, it was damn difficult to get to America. Now … we are being invaded. We have a current crop of 30M illegals hanging out in America … in 1880 … there were less than 3M people in ALL of America. There is NO WAY our forefathers could even imagine all those babies being dropped by foreigners … followed by a chain of their extended families.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Excellent segment from Michael Anton (author of the Flight 93 election piece in 2016) about “birthright citizenship” on Tucker Carlson tonight. He is quite eloquent in favor of removing birthright citizenship, and clarifies that the circumstances for 14th amendment.


    Liked by 3 people

  17. Here is a link to the Tucker Carlson interview:

    Liked by 3 people

  18. mariner says:

    Speaker Paul Ryan: ‘you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.’…”

    Why not?

    Courts created birthright citizenship by judicial fiat.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. antonyrg says:

    ‘For the Democrats, support for open-borders and lax immigration enforcement is part of their overall ideology and fabian world-view. For traditional republicans support for lax immigration, which allows exploitation of labor, is driven by the Wall Street views of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (President Tom Donohue), and various elements associated with multinational corporate interests (Koch Brothers).’

    OK, so Sundance accepts that ideology is largely if not completely behind the actions of the Democratic Party and their supporters. We are getting somewhere. But he still believes that the motivation of pro-immigration Republicans is greed or the support of people motivated by greed. There’s a dangerous flaw in this argument. Political parties are not immune, unaffected or closed off from the great ideological movements/waves that sweep through history – such as the massive cultural and moral shift to the left and more recently the far-left that has happened across the West in the last 1/2 century. In fact, it could be said that the amount of change that we have seen in places like America, France and Britain in the last 1/2 century is absolutely unprecedented. It’s like an ideological hurricane has swept through the West and has left the place totally devastated.

    Anyone who seriously believes that the progressive/neo-Marxist ideology has not in some way invaded the Republican Party is insane. So who are the progressives currently in the GOP? There has to be some in there. I would actually suggest that until Trump came along the party had been completely compromised. It’s therefore likely that anyone in the Republican Party who is supporting pro-immigration policies is a progressive, and therefore also motivated by ideology.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Everett Miller says:

    Trump’s most brilliant play to date. In one swift blindside he has:
    Expressed the will of We The People;
    Called for a return to The Rule of Law;
    Exposed the Treason of the Political Parties;
    Began “comprehensive immigration reform”;
    Begun the rebalancing of the 3 Branches;
    Reset “the narrative” just before the midterms;
    Stranded shallow politicians to floundering;
    Put The World on notice of Our Power;
    Amplified the value of American Citizenship;
    Etc.; you can expand This List at will.

    Liked by 6 people

  21. fakenoozisforfools says:

    Paul Ryan = lame duck. YUGE emphasis on the lame part.


  22. LULU says:

    Paul Ryan needs these articles to counteract his simplistic interpretation:



    Section 1. 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.

    Ryan grabs the first three words and blithely skips past the very important limiting portion highlighted in bold.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. spoogels says:

    Ryan should read the constitution carefully

    Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitution

    President Trump’s comments are not even set to air until this weekend, but already they have created a firestorm of commentary, most of it ill-informed.

    It is not “within the president’s power to change birthright citizenship,” claimed Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, echoing the views of many in the legal academy. Birthright citizenship is mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore can only be “changed” by constitutional amendment, not by mere executive order or act of Congress, or so the argument goes.

    see also
    Trump vows to end birthright citizenship in challenge to 14th Amendment
    Trump vows to end birthright citizenship in challenge to 14th Amendment
    That view depends on reading the 14th Amendment as actually mandating automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on US soil, no matter the circumstances. Temporary visitors, such as tourists, students and guest workers, can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children merely by giving birth while here, is the claim.

    That view has given rise to the cottage industry known as “birth tourism.” Worse, under this view, citizenship is automatic even if the parents overstay their visas and become illegally present in the United States. Worse still, such citizenship is automatic for children born of parents who were never lawfully present in the United States in the first place.

    In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.

    It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.

    And it essentially destroys the notion of sovereignty itself, since a “people” are not able to define what constitutes them as a “people” entitled, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, to “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

    That the 14th Amendment settled the question without ever explicitly addressing it is even more bizarre.

    The actual language of the 14th Amendment actually contains two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” — that’s the birth-on-US- soil part — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is that second requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction,” that is the source of much confusion today, because to our modern ear, that just means subject to our laws.

    That is one meaning, of course, but not the only one, and not the one that the drafters of the 14th Amendment had in mind. For them, being merely subject to our laws meant that one was subject to our “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction. It was a jurisdiction applicable to “temporary sojourners” — what we today call temporary visitors. It was not the kind of jurisdiction that was codified in the 14th Amendment. For that, a more complete, allegiance-owing jurisdiction was required.

    We don’t need to speculate about this, as the authors of the 14th Amendment were asked directly what they meant (albeit not in the context of illegal immigration, since there were no restrictions on immigration at the time). When asked whether Native Americans would automatically be citizens under the clause, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”

    And Sen. Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” And the “now” that he was referencing was the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    So President Trump is not proposing to “amend” the Constitution by executive order. He is proposing to faithfully enforce the Constitution as written, not how it has erroneously come to be interpreted in the last half century. It’s long overdue.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. spoogels says:

    Diversity Destroys Culture


  25. Bulldog84 says:

    Birthright citizenship is there, in the Constitution, plain as day, right next to the right to abortion. You simply have to ignore key language, and once you do — presto!

    Liked by 1 person

  26. A good, strong article, much needed now. The best lines:

    “McCain dies; Martha McSally has the same view funded by the same benefactor. Corker resigns; Mitt Romney has the same view funded by the same benefactor. Paul Ryan exits; Kevin McCarthy has the same view funded by the same benefactor. See the problem?”

    And a close second: “First, President Trump will need the unwavering support of common sense middle-America.”

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Caius Lowell says:

    I love when Ryan says, “We as conservatives.” The ability to lie sincerely is the hallmark of a professional Uniparty politician.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. TwoLaine says:

    Well Mr. Speaker,

    Put your money where your mouth is, Earn Your Pay and GIT-R-DONE!

    The People Have Spoken


  29. TwoLaine says:

    I have actually noticed a big shift in the tone of the Fox stations this week, with a leaning toward the b.s. comprehensive immigration saga and trying to engender sympathy for the hordes. I find it disgusting to watch, so I haven’t paid much attention to them this week. ICK.

    Even Lou Dobbs shut down the brilliant Sidney Powell the other night when she was talking about the fact that Americans deserve to be taken care of before immigrants illegally invading our country. The national debt is exploding, and we have our own poor, homeless and helpless people who need food, jobs, healthcare and education. We have mystery diseases taking our children. And Lou shut her down saying that wasn’t the illegal immigrants fault. WHOA BUDDY!

    First she didn’t say that, at all, or imply that. Second, we DO KNOW that legal and illegal immigrants are bringing in diseases to our country. It is well documented. Do your homework LOU!

    And why should innocent American citizens have to foot any health bills for people invading our country illegally and in mobs? Answer that, please!


    • drljr says:

      Remember, Ark’s parents were legitimate, i.e. legal, immigrants, both bound by an oath fealty so that when Ark was born he was a citizen under Amendment 14. Also, most of the Ark text is meaningless since we have citizen not subjects. Also read the 1875 Elk case.


    • NJ Transplant says:

      Lou lives in NJ. There are some little kids dying of an unknown disease in NJ, which has been overrun by illegals for years. I remember after the “unaccompanied migrant” horde in 2014, there were little kids dying of an unknown disease, including in NJ.

      Lou was reprimanded about the fake bomber last week. I think that is behind his carefulness about the diseases. It made me mad because Sidney was right. She got in a comment in the end about the diseases are coming from somewhere.

      Liked by 1 person

      • TwoLaine says:

        Yes. All anyone has to do is research where the diseases are coming from, and we all know who gets stuck with the bills. American citizens who can”t afford health care for their own children in America. American Dreamers.

        Absolutely Sidney was right. Sidney knows her facts, that is why she is the expert and he has her on his show in the 1st place. Sidney held her own when he finally gave her an opportunity to speak again. It was ridiculous.

        I don’t know what happened last week, but I guess I should find out. Lou was one of the few people I halfway trust on the tubes, but if he’s being censored…

        Liked by 1 person

      • TwoLaine says:

        I see that he called the non-bombs “fake bombs”. Since none of the so-called suspicious packages went off, I’d say they were as safe as clock boys device.


  30. Levin is right, but this really isn’t a ‘constitutional’ issue. POTUS can sign an EO that affects how the Executive Branch implements those that claim ‘birthright citizenship’. The courts, as usual, will grouse, but, ultimately, the EO will be upheld.


  31. G. Combs says:



    Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

    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.”

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

    The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

    Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called ‘Slaughter-House cases’ [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.’ In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be ‘not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.’ ….”


    ALSO by a Constitutional scholar: Babies Don’t Provide Anchors!


    • drljr says:

      Remember, the term “subject” in relation to “citizenship” is related to royalty and obligations to the Crown. In Great Britain people are citizens of certain areas, Ireland, Scotland, London, etc., but they are all subjects of the Crown. The US, a Republic, has citizens and the US Revolutionary War resulted in our rejecting the Crown and being subjects of the Crown. This difference between “citizen” and “subject” is why most of the 1898 Ark case is meaningless. Ark’s parents were immigrants and Ark was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and born a US citizen even though his parents were never US citizens. His parents could be charged with treason and sedition as actual immigrants due to limited fealty to the US. Which is one reason people need to understand the difference between immigrants, illegal aliens, migrant workers, HxB workers, diplomats, visitors, etc.

      PS: I hope this gets put in the correct location.


    • Y’all Know What Time It Is says:

      How can someone who sneaks into the country and whose presence is unknown be considered under the jurisdiction of…”?


    • bentley1blog says:

      Gcombs…Thank you so much for your perseverance on this topic of Illegal Aliens and their babies. Don’t know how much more plainly you already have made it, but absolutely, ONCE AGAIN! Tweet this to the humble Oscar Meyer goof. If I did tweet, I for one, would have sent directly to creepy Ryan or should I say RINO.


    • Lactantius says:

      What I have to say is not in contradiction of your post in any way. The birthright/anchor baby conflict has been permitted to take root and metastasize. Meanwhile, the Progressive tactic of stacking the courts with judges who manipulate the rule of law has also taken root and metastasized.

      The consequence of all this is that the courts are divided between those judges who read the law for guidance and those judges who read the law to find a way to “justify” what they wish the law to say. The post-Kavanaugh 5-4 split on SCOTUS is over the fact that now five justices are dedicated to the law as written and four justices are quite comfortable going on a treasure hunt in order to find what they want the outcome to be.

      There is a great oversimplification of what underlies this birthright debate. The judges are not mere referees who operate according to the book of rules. Therefore, the appeals process is overwhelmed by those plaintiffs who are looking for the rule of law to overcome “judicial discretion” of some lower court judge. Most experienced prosecutors know that arguing the law before some judges is basically a fool’s errand because the judge is going to find the Progressive solution.

      This is to say that the political corruption of some judges concerning the rule of law will determine the tactic the prosecutor will adopt. Hence, the reason that judge shopping is so prominent.

      In conclusion, what may seem to be simple legal direction is never a sure thing in the hands of a court which is politically motivated to manipulate the process of adjudication.

      This should be evident by the antics of the DOJ, the FBI, Mueller and the silence of Chief Justice John Roberts and his oversight of the FISA Courts.


  32. hard masada says:

    After reading this you’ll wonder why this was challenged by the citizenry? https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/misinterpreted.html


  33. Pokey says:

    The mass “confusion” about the 14th Amendment is a clear example of how our Federal bureaucracies make stuff up as they go, and how Congress always abdicates its responsibilities whenever they can be politically targeted for the outcome of their so called work. I have a lot of respect for what Trump is trying to expose with this impending Executive Order on the accuracy of the Government’s interpretation of our 14th amendment. I do not expect the Supreme Court to support him because the Federal political class supports this misinterpretation almost unanimously. That is why nothing ever gets done about it. So, PDJT will keep the subject on the stupidity of our immigration procedures but will never get it corrected until ‘The People’ demonstrate that support of the status quo is decidedly not what ‘The People’ want! I believe that ‘The People’ basically will never care as long as they don’t see their own lives being affected. ‘The People’ have never been exposed to anything but the current gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. Most of us will never be Constitutional scholars, to put it mildly, and nothing will ever get corrected except by unchallenged Executive Order. Fat chance for that to happen, so once again, here we all are with a Government that is FUBAR and this particular fact is one of the big reasons for said condition. At least PDJT is keeping illegal immigration as the main issue of this election cycle and I hope to God that strategy is successful.


  34. TwoLaine says:

    Shut Up, Sit Down, and WATCH!

    Better yet, go home ans stay there. Traitor.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Ned Zeppelin says:

    The fun part is considering how do you end a “right to citizenship status” that never existed in the first place. Just because there may have been, once upon a time, general agreement that the earth is flat didn’t make it so. So what happens? It may well be that ALL of the so-called birthright “Citizens” are not citizens at all, never have been, never will be except by other legal means of gaining citizenship.


  36. mutantbeast says:

    Lyin Ryan, the commie piece of excrement who NEVER bothered to say anything when OBAMA instituted DACA by EO, once again says “we conservtives”(he certainly does not qualify) so he can flog his own party. He will NOT be missed as he retires. Just in case anyone doesnt want to forget. Lyin Ryan WANTS to be president himself, even tho he stands no chance at winning.


  37. Kwik says:

    I say give everyone exactly what they want.

    Bring them in and set up a tent city in Beverly Hill CA. HUD can start buying and converting some of the mansions for sale into BIGLY homeless shelters. Fill the parks and golf courses nearby with tent cities

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Sedanka says:

    Who cares? Ryan is gone and can’t affect this. Any statement he makes is nuanced nonsense to beg for lobbying work.


  39. rustybritches says:

    Just out a few hours ago , There is going to be Civilians along the border helping to keep these people out too, according to the state dept they are letting the Ranchers know that there will be Civilians in and around their areas over the next few months.. this is what PT was talking about the other day when he said they had plans to form a human chain This is great but hope none of them get killed being out there and hope that they will be traveling with other people


    • Coast says:

      Just what is it that we will be doing….catching them? Which means that they will now be in our country? I want them stopped….PRIOR to be on our border. You don’t allow an invasion force to enter your country…and you don’t even allow them to get to the border. What if this was China, or Russia. Would we just wait till they landed? This needs to be recognized and called out for what it is…not let’s arrest 10,000 people every two months.


  40. clyde says:

    Senator Howard.
    Citizenship Clause.

    During the vituperative debates that embroiled the Senate in those historic days following the Civil War, Senator Howard insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being considered by his colleagues. In the speech with which he proposed the alteration, Howard declared:

    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, [or] 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.

    How could a person “born in the United States” be simultaneously a citizen and a “foreigner” or “alien” if the mere fact of nativity settled the question of citizenship?

    The Senator’s explanatory introduction crystallizes the intent of the man who wrote the citizenship clause. His statement suggests strongly that the legislators who supported the 14th Amendment never intended to swaddle all babies born within the geographic boundaries of the United States within the snug and secure blanket of citizenship. The doctrine of jus soli was not contemplated by the Congress and is inconsistent with the record of debates preceding the passage of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.


  41. Robert Kenneth Pavlick says:

    Oh yes, you CAN , if the District Courts try to shoot the Order down and the Supreme Court has to revisit the 14th Amendment and demonstrate the original purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was only to grant citizenship to slaves and their children and not to foreigners and THEIR children; and not even to Native Americans ! Then we will see that the 14th Amendment was never intended to provide “birthright citizenship ” to the children of just anyone, and even less, to the children of people who are here illegally !


  42. Barack Obama did multiple things by executive order. Why did that go unchecked, unchallenged and unnoticed?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s