6 thoughts on “Birthright Citizenship”

  1. This is a sticky wicket. I hope the Solicitor General has some powerful arguments that will convince at least 5 of the SCOTUS’s to vote that a child born of an illegal is not a citizen.

  2. I think they all need to watch this excellent video! I appreciate how her proofs explain where our interpretations have been tweaked and twisted to substantiate a claim born in its time but how the original intent of the law still stands on its own merit. Nothing sticky about that as far as I can tell. No other country would dare to entertain the BS we’ve had shoved down our throats over citizens’ rights which have only weakened our sovereignty and the strength of individual liberties as US citizens.

    1. I agree, Jan. The original meaning of a constitutional provision is what it meant when it was adopted and during the time period that immediately followed. That is what ought to guide us. The last Supreme Court decision she discussed probably gets away from the original meaning.

  3. Well laid out. The Supreme Ct. can only inflict anchor baby citizenship on us by pretending the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” isn’t in the 14th Amendment or that it has no meaning.

    An aside: A number of countries freed slaves in the 19th century, but only the US immediately gave these largely illiterate people the right to vote. There was nothing altruistic about it: it was necessary to the fortunes of the Republican Party immediately after Lincoln’s War. And the conquered states of the South had no say in the matter. The South suffered the consequences…the destructive “Reconstruction”, giving rise to the pernicious attitudes of the 1890s.

Comments are closed.