Fourteenth Amendment

[joan1984]

Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies

Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.
In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.

Such is the case today with “anchor babies” and “birthright citizenship.” People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.

If you’d like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!

Of course the president can end the citizenship of “anchor babies” by executive order — for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.

It’s just something everyone believes to be true.

How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?

The first question would be: Why would they do that? It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?

The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

YOU MEAN THAT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.

You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

As the court has explained again and again and again:

“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.

The 14th Amendment fixed that.

The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.

President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.

But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about “civil rights,” you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.

Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect!

Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”

It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”

This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.

Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.

No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.

It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now we see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/10/31/ann-coulter-the-true-history-of-millstone-babies/

[_priapism]

Fuck you.

[Athos_131]

Fuck you.

+1

#Resist

[Katiebee]

No Joan, he cannot. Multiple SCOTUS cases, etc. have determined hat the 14th Amendment applies to all. It has been settled law for over 140 years. It would take Congress to revoke it, or a SCOTUS Decision to change it.

It cannot be changed by Executive order. Trump is not a king.
Let me explain this to you in the detail you need.

Executive orders are applied to administrative matters, not in creating or revoking law. Trump may not declare a law.

[Levorotatory]

I've always found the whole concept of citizenship at birth a bit odd.  It leads to oddities like a child who was born to someone visiting the country but left at a very young age automatically being a citizen of a country they have no memory of, while someone who was born elsewhere and arrived in the country at a young age and grew up there must apply for citizenship like any other immigrant.  There are even cases of such people who never applied for citizenship and then rendered themselves ineligible by getting into trouble with the law being deported from the only country they have ever known to one they have no connection to.  It makes no sense.

[psiberzerker]

Wow, like an entire article worth of complete, and utter bullshit.  My favorite part was where she said that Trump (Unlike the left) respects blacks. 

Ignorance dressed up as authority. 

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Jed_]

Wow, like an entire article worth of complete, and utter bullshit.  My favorite part was where she said that Trump (Unlike the left) respects blacks. 

Ignorance dressed up as authority. 

Well, it’s Ann Coulter after all.  I’m sure she has another Why Liberals Suck book to sell.

I’m almost certain I met her at a Grateful Dead concert roughly 30 years ago.  She’s made a career out of stirring up the right by saying she’s baiting the left and is the most hated person by the left, when in fact the left barely notices her.  Quite frankly, I’d bet she lacks complete sincerity and is rather unhappy.  She’d rather be sitting in a field listening to music and smoking pot, but instead she’s locked herself into a sad little career with no out.

[Jed_]

One of the invertebrates is evolving.

[Jed_]

On the flip side of this do called controversy, I always found the constitutional clause the birthers latched onto to be rather odd.  How could the child of a U.S. citizen not automatically be a U.S. citizen regardless of where they were born (unless there was some effort to chose a different citizenship of the other parent)?  And why would it be in the constitution that a U.S. citizen had to be born in the U.S. to be president?  Imagine a couple meeting and living in the U.S., but one parent is from Canada.  They happen to visit Canada briefly and she unexpectedly goes into labor.  So a chance delivery on a trip has now destined the child to never be president, but if he/she was born a week later upon return to the U.S., he/she is good to go on being POTUS?

If the Republicans want to debate the absurdity of something in the constitution, how about that one?  Oh yeah, wasn’t Ted Cruz born in Canada to a Cuban father?  I guess it’s only an issue when one parent is from a country with people brown or darker.

[MissBarbara]

Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies

Piggybacking on Katie's point, the blinkered ignorance of this article is breathtaking. Reading it is like witnessing a multiple car accident: You react with horror, but you just can't stop looking. I read it in its entirety.

What I found most fascinating (over and above her use of pejorative language at every available opportunity, and the fact that she clearly demonstrates that she's on of the "people who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment"), is that she makes assertions and assumes they are viable solely on her say so.

Take this whopper:

The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the "main object" of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment "was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes," making them "citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

Repeatedly? That's the opinion of one justice, Horace Gray, writing for the minority in the famous "U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark" decision. He wrote that in 1898 -- about 120 years ago. And, it's worth noting, Gray supported both the Chinese Exclusion Act and he voted with the majority in the "Plessy v. Ferguson" case, one of the worst decisions in the entire history of the Supreme Court, which declared racial segregation laws to be Constitutional. It comes as absolutely no surprise that Coulter is a fan of Justice Gray.

The U.S. Constitution is silent on what constitutes U.S. Citizenship. In the one place where it is mentioned, it is in defining the qualifications for the U.S. President. where it states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" (Article II, Section 1). This does not apply to citizenship in general, nor does it describe what "natural born" means.

Meanwhile, the Fourteenth Amendment is equally vague:

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.

Ms. Coulter is correct that this Amendment, ratified in 1868 immediately after the Civil War, was primarily aimed at granting full citizenship to newly-freed slaves. But where Coulter errs, wildly and probably deliberately, is in determining that this is the only thing this Amendment refers to, and, equally grievously, that the text means that children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are not citizens by birth. It means nothing of the sort.

She errs in a similar way in discussing why American Indians are not included under 14th Amendment protection. It has nothing to do with their race and ancestry, or the fact that they were not "freed slaves," and everything to do with the fact that American Indian communities were considered sovereign territories and, by definition, not a part of the U.S. or the states wherein they reside. They were citizens of their sovereign nations, not the U.S. 

Coulter may be correct in asserting, "President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves." But she errs -- again grievously and likely deliberately -- in asserting that while that might have been their "whole purpose" when the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were ratified in the late 1860s -- 150 years ago -- these Amendments -- and especially the 14th Amendment -- have been interpreted, by Justices both Conservative and Liberal, to extend to countless other areas. I wonder if Ms, Coulter, were she deprived of "life, liberty, or property," would refuse the protection of the 14th Amendment, since it only applies to newly-freed slaves?

She is correct: "No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right." This specific issue -- the legal status of the children born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants -- has not been specifically determined under the Constitution nor by Federal Law passed by Congress (nor, for that matter, as the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

And all of this simply means that she's offering her personal opinion -- an opinion weighted with a tinge or racism and a heavy dollop of xenophobia. As a polemicist, it's her job to offer opinions. But she would be an incomparably more effect polemicist if she were to base her opinions on an objective examination of the Constitution, including the Amendments, along with Federal Law and relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Perhaps the most important point of all is that it is currently the practice to grant birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents of questionable or illegal residence status. A baby born this morning at NYU Hospital to illegal immigrant parents will receive a birth certificate and can apply for a U.S. passport, thereby demonstrating their citizenship. Coulter, and her president (and their supporters) intend to change this. Their arguments have to sole goal of changing the law and re-interpreting (or at least clarifying) the 14th Amendment. And neither Trump, nor any other president, can do this via Executive Order.

Actually, the most important point of all is that this whole affair is a complete smokescreen, on both her part and the president's. It's no coincidence that Trump issued his statement about potentially issuing an Executive Order exactly one week before the Midterm Congressional elections. It's a pure political ploy, initiated for the sole goal of "energizing his base" in advance of the election (as is the whole to do over the "caravan" heading toward our southern border bent on wrecking death and destruction across all 50 states). Will it be effective in affecting the outcome of next week's elections?

We'll see...

[psiberzerker]

On the flip side of this do called controversy, I always found the constitutional clause the birthers latched onto to be rather odd.  How could the child of a U.S. citizen not automatically be a U.S. citizen regardless of where they were born (unless there was some effort to chose a different citizenship of the other parent)?  And why would it be in the constitution that a U.S. citizen had to be born in the U.S. to be president?  Imagine a couple meeting and living in the U.S., but one parent is from Canada.  They happen to visit Canada briefly and she unexpectedly goes into labor.  So a chance delivery on a trip has now destined the child to never be president, but if he/she was born a week later upon return to the U.S., he/she is good to go on being POTUS?

If the Republicans want to debate the absurdity of something in the constitution, how about that one?  Oh yeah, wasn’t Ted Cruz born in Canada to a Cuban father?  I guess it’s only an issue when one parent is from a country with people brown or darker.

Well, let's talk about "Flippflopping," then, shal we?  Isn't that what the Don called it, when he accused Hillary of "Flipflopping?"  He's leading the march of the Conservatives now, but oddly enough, that was exactly the issue when the Birthers were tying to prove Obama ineligible.  Proving that he wan't born in America, so they can shoehorn their candidate.  (Honestly, I forget at this point.  Darth Cheney was smart enough not to run while Revenge of the Sith was still fresh in everyone's minds.) into the white-house by default.  After all, we can't let a Kenyan into the White House, now can we?

So, basically, it's say whatever is convenient, rather than say what they actually mean.  not just lie, but this is the new Strategy for the lie.  "It's not about Mexico," ~D. Trump.  They don't have this in Mexico, but it's totally not about Mexico, that's why I keep talking about Mexico, every time I change the subjects back around to Immigration.  I mean Jobs, i know, let's build a wall to raise Jobs, and deport all the illegals (Wherever they might be from) that are taking all these great jobs from great people.  What do I mean by Great?  

What a stupid question, not like Mex, uh.  Obama.  Yeah, fix all the problems Obama left us, when he went and fixed all the Debt left by W.  Fighting his daddy's war on loan, and promising to pay it back some time in the future.  You know after Clinton.  Not, the other Clinton, what's his name, the one that almost got impeached for a Sex Scandal?  Yeah, that one.  Ever since Hillary's husband payed off all the debt from King George the First, and Reagan left him to pay for not stopping Hussein in the first place, and Star Wars.  

What gets me is that the same people on here, that can't follow what I'm talking about seem to be able to understand what Donald "Flip flopping" Trump is talking about, because he remains so consistent, and uses such easy to follow language without throwing "Confusing" quotes in there on the wrong word, and contradicting ever point with the next point.

Almost as if it's less important what's being said than who's saying it.  It's amazing how your reading comprehension shoots up when you care about the speaker being right, instead of skinning every sentence for 3 one point to discredit them.

Sad.

[joan1984]

https://www.wnd.com/2010/08/187785/
 
Anchor babies, those of aliens who have not entered the United States legally, provide such supposed 'citizens' by their U.S. Born progeny, due to a Footnote which Justice Brennan added to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision he wrote, having to do with an unrelated matter, in 1982.

President Trump could jump start the process to correct the current impression by virtue of elevating the discussion so that SCOTUS can review, discuss, and rule about how the Amendment is currently, incorrectly being applied, and see our way clear to correcting such interpretation.

[watcher1]

Ann Coulter: The True History of Millstone Babies

Piggybacking on Katie's point, the blinkered ignorance of this article is breathtaking. Reading it is like witnessing a multiple car accident: You react with horror, but you just can't stop looking. I read it in its entirety.

What I found most fascinating (over and above her use of pejorative language at every available opportunity, and the fact that she clearly demonstrates that she's on of the "people who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment"), is that she makes assertions and assumes they are viable solely on her say so.

Take this whopper:

The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the "main object" of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment "was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes," making them "citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

Repeatedly? That's the opinion of one justice, Horace Gray, writing for the minority in the famous "U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark" decision. He wrote that in 1898 -- about 120 years ago. And, it's worth noting, Gray supported both the Chinese Exclusion Act and he voted with the majority in the "Plessy v. Ferguson" case, one of the worst decisions in the entire history of the Supreme Court, which declared racial segregation laws to be Constitutional. It comes as absolutely no surprise that Coulter is a fan of Justice Gray.

The U.S. Constitution is silent on what constitutes U.S. Citizenship. In the one place where it is mentioned, it is in defining the qualifications for the U.S. President. where it states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" (Article II, Section 1). This does not apply to citizenship in general, nor does it describe what "natural born" means.

Meanwhile, the Fourteenth Amendment is equally vague:

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.

Ms. Coulter is correct that this Amendment, ratified in 1868 immediately after the Civil War, was primarily aimed at granting full citizenship to newly-freed slaves. But where Coulter errs, wildly and probably deliberately, is in determining that this is the only thing this Amendment refers to, and, equally grievously, that the text means that children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are not citizens by birth. It means nothing of the sort.

She errs in a similar way in discussing why American Indians are not included under 14th Amendment protection. It has nothing to do with their race and ancestry, or the fact that they were not "freed slaves," and everything to do with the fact that American Indian communities were considered sovereign territories and, by definition, not a part of the U.S. or the states wherein they reside. They were citizens of their sovereign nations, not the U.S. 

Coulter may be correct in asserting, "President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves." But she errs -- again grievously and likely deliberately -- in asserting that while that might have been their "whole purpose" when the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were ratified in the late 1860s -- 150 years ago -- these Amendments -- and especially the 14th Amendment -- have been interpreted, by Justices both Conservative and Liberal, to extend to countless other areas. I wonder if Ms, Coulter, were she deprived of "life, liberty, or property," would refuse the protection of the 14th Amendment, since it only applies to newly-freed slaves?

She is correct: "No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right." This specific issue -- the legal status of the children born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants -- has not been specifically determined under the Constitution nor by Federal Law passed by Congress (nor, for that matter, as the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

And all of this simply means that she's offering her personal opinion -- an opinion weighted with a tinge or racism and a heavy dollop of xenophobia. As a polemicist, it's her job to offer opinions. But she would be an incomparably more effect polemicist if she were to base her opinions on an objective examination of the Constitution, including the Amendments, along with Federal Law and relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Perhaps the most important point of all is that it is currently the practice to grant birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents of questionable or illegal residence status. A baby born this morning at NYU Hospital to illegal immigrant parents will receive a birth certificate and can apply for a U.S. passport, thereby demonstrating their citizenship. Coulter, and her president (and their supporters) intend to change this. Their arguments have to sole goal of changing the law and re-interpreting (or at least clarifying) the 14th Amendment. And neither Trump, nor any other president, can do this via Executive Order.

Actually, the most important point of all is that this whole affair is a complete smokescreen, on both her part and the president's. It's no coincidence that Trump issued his statement about potentially issuing an Executive Order exactly one week before the Midterm Congressional elections. It's a pure political ploy, initiated for the sole goal of "energizing his base" in advance of the election (as is the whole to do over the "caravan" heading toward our southern border bent on wrecking death and destruction across all 50 states). Will it be effective in affecting the outcome of next week's elections?

We'll see...

WOO, MissB. You have explained the historical aspect of this debate better then anything I have read in the papers, both liberal or conservative. Kudos to KB's resident historian.

[Elizabeth]

Damn....!!!!
I'm a duo citizen.. Both Irish and American.
Have Passports for and from both Countries......
Oh Well....

Love,
Liz

[psiberzerker]

Anchor babies, those of aliens who have not entered the United States legally, provide such supposed 'citizens' by their U.S. Born progeny, due to a Footnote which Justice Brennan added to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision he wrote, having to do with an unrelated matter, in 1982.

President Trump could jump start the process to correct the current impression by virtue of elevating the discussion so that SCOTUS can review, discuss, and rule about how the Amendment is currently, incorrectly being applied, and see our way clear to correcting such interpretation.

Another way they can solidify their citizenship is by marrying an American.  Let's say a woman from El Salvador moves to Mexico, gets a temporary Visa, marries a businessman, and has a baby.  Then, she gets divorced, her visa, and her daughter's citizenship are revoked, then they're deported back to Mexico, right?

As Ivana Zelníčková, and Ivanka Trump weren't.  (Only Canada, instead of Mexico.)  Ivana still lives here, her visa was not revoked, and she was not deported to back to Canada. If the Don applied his double standards equally, the same as he tried to impose them on Barack Obama, he should have his daughter Ivanka deported.  She was born here, her mother was not, she married to change her citizenship from Canadian to American, and then she got Divorced.  (Then she remarried at Mar a Lago, and now she's getting divorced again.)

However, she's European American, and he has no interest in taking the children of European Americans, then deporting them back across the border.  Now, do you see the blatant, systematic racism you're endorsing?  Again, the law, and rights of citizens have to be applied equally to all citizens, regardless of our heritage.  People born here as US citizens is not open to interpretation.  They were born here, they are US citizens.  What part of that don't you understand?  If being born an American is stripped from the definition of American, then we all lose our identities as Americans.  Regardless of our family's nation of origin.  

[IrishGirl]

https://www.wnd.com/2010/08/187785/
 
Anchor babies, those of aliens who have not entered the United States legally, provide such supposed 'citizens' by their U.S. Born progeny, due to a Footnote which Justice Brennan added to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision he wrote, having to do with an unrelated matter, in 1982.

President Trump could jump start the process to correct the current impression by virtue of elevating the discussion so that SCOTUS can review, discuss, and rule about how the Amendment is currently, incorrectly being applied, and see our way clear to correcting such interpretation.

Far be it for me to say--given that I have a reputation by the intolerant reactionaries here for being alt-right--but the 1982 case was  Plyler v. Doe and it actually clearly stated that children of immigrants were subject to the same laws and rights as children born ti US citizens.

And let me repeat "subject to the same laws and rights."

Literally the ONLY reason why it can be remotely considered an "unrelated manner" is because it was about the right to education not citizenship, but the fact is clear, the ruling clearly stated that they were "subject to the same laws and rights."

Just because the case in question involved the right to an education and not the right to vote doesn't change the fact that the ruling was about subjecting children born on US soil to immigrant parents to the same laws and rights as everyone else.

[Katiebee]

The issue might be taken further. The viability of citizenship of any child born on US soil may be in question and the status of citizenship may be conferred by application or other qualification. So if they aren’t careful in wording they may strip citizenship from a great many people. Fancy wording by lawyers does not mean that the rules are clear.

[IrishGirl]

The issue might be taken further. The viability of citizenship of any child born on US soil may be in question and the status of citizenship may be conferred by application or other qualification. So if they aren’t careful in wording they may strip citizenship from a great many people. Fancy wording by lawyers does not mean that the rules are clear.

There doesn't need to be any fancy wording by lawyers, this is America, we've historically made a point of being the mother of exiles even when groups like the Irish and now Latinos are horribly discriminated against.

The only difference between when the 14th Amendment was passed and today is that we've changed the law to being born in the US v setting foot on US soil to be a citizen.

[IdleBoast]

... someone who was born elsewhere and arrived in the country at a young age and grew up there must apply for citizenship like any other immigrant.

Perhaps you've heard of the UK's "Windrush generation" controversy, where exactly that was happening to the children of people invited to the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?

There are even cases of such people who never applied for citizenship and then rendered themselves ineligible by getting into trouble with the law being deported from the only country they have ever known to one they have no connection to.  It makes no sense.

Again, Windrush.

There have also been a number of cases of people who have lived in this country for several decades, since arriving as a toddler, and holding a British passport, being denied re-entry o the UK after visiting family abroad.