600,000 Men Died for Anchor Babies

The 14th Amendment was about former slaves – not Mexicans, Indians or Chinese

This Kushner-less Trump presidency is fantastic! Instead of the president’s son-in-law releasing criminals, Rep. Paul Ryan prioritizing tax cuts over the wall, and Kushner pal Gary Cohn preserving Wall Street’s tax boondoggles, we’re finally getting all that great immigration stuff Trump ran on in 2016. (Maybe he finally read In Trump We Trust and remembered how fantastic he was.)

Trump’s most important executive order is the one that returns to the American people the ability to determine who becomes a citizen. The way things are now, that decision is put in the hands of illegal aliens, who are here against our will and in violation of our laws or — in the case of birth tourism — in the hands of the Chinese government.

Apart from trivialities such as there being no law, no court ruling and no history to support treating kids born to illegals and tourists as “citizens,” it’s preposterous that America would cede control over who becomes a citizen to foreigners.

The media’s incessant references to “birthright citizenship” — I’m looking at you, New York Times — deceptively suggest that the Constitution already contains a right to citizenship for anyone born here. There is no such right, and no sane nation would create one.

The constitutional provision allegedly bestowing this right is the 14th Amendment, one of the Civil War amendments, guaranteeing full citizenship rights to former slaves.

Give me a scenario — it doesn’t have to be true, give me any scenario — where, immediately after the Civil War, Americans felt compelled to amend our Constitution so that, 100 years hence, a pregnant Mexican could run across the border, drop a kid, and that kid would be a citizen, entitled to all welfare and education benefits, who could then bring in six more relatives.

You’re telling me that if a foreigner sneaks into our country and has a baby, that kid isn’t already a citizen? Damn straight we have to fix that!

Obviously, the Civil War amendments were exclusively about slavery — as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held.

The trick was to write an amendment stating that former slaves were citizens — without acknowledging the institution of slavery, an embarrassment in a country founded on the idea that all men are created equal.

To refer to former slaves, the drafters chose the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” At that point, newly freed slaves had been “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. for nearly a century. (By contrast, if we don’t even know you’re here, you can’t be subject to our “jurisdiction.”)

In one misbegotten case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a divided court extended 14th-Amendment citizenship rights to the son of legal Chinese laborers. (The Chinese Exclusion Act had been passed 16 years earlier and would remain in full force and effect for another half-century. Way to read a room, Supreme Court!)

That case was probably wrongly decided — as the Yale Law Journal argued at the time — but in any event, it has nothing to do with Trump’s executive order, which is about illegal immigrants and tourists, not legal residents.

One thing Wong Kim Ark definitely didn’t do was grant a constitutional right of citizenship to anyone who happens to be born here. First, children born to diplomats and heads of state were excluded.

Second, well into the 20th century, white Europeans born on U.S. soil — whose great-grandparents may have come on the Mayflower — were denied citizenship if they were women married to an immigrant.

Progressives have bullied Americans into believing that the post-Civil War amendments had nothing to do with slavery. Forget the Middle Passage, Gettysburg, Ulysses S. Grant and the 600,000 men dead as a result—- they claim Americans rushed to add these amendments to the Constitution just after a bloody civil war to ensure the happiness and well-being of illegal aliens.

Like everything with the left, in five minutes, we go from the manifestly absurd to constitutional right. We had the body, we had witnesses, we had fingerprints, we had his confession. Damn — we forgot to read him his Miranda rights! You’re free to go, sir…

2 replies
  1. Freddy
    Freddy says:

    “Spring” reveals a fascinating etymological journey with multiple semantic dimensions. Rooted in the Old High German “springan”, the word fundamentally means to leap forth or gush forth, encompassing physical movement, source, and seasonal transformation.

    The linguistic evolution demonstrates how a single term can capture diverse conceptual landscapes. From the literal act of jumping to the metaphorical emergence of life in springtime, the word bridges physical and emotional experiences. It symbolizes renewal, energy, and the awakening of natural and human potentials.

    The connection between “Springfield” and “Springinsfeld” illustrates how related languages develop parallel yet distinct linguistic expressions. Similar to the German “Born” (spring, source) and English “born”, these words share ancestral roots while diverging in specific cultural and contextual meanings.

    This etymological exploration reveals language as a dynamic, interconnected system where words are not static, but living entities that evolve, branch, and reflect human experience across time and cultures. The term “spring” encapsulates movement, origin, emotion, and regeneration in a remarkably compact linguistic package.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPwK_DLgX7Y

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.