(LifeSiteNews) — Let’s begin with the most important aspect of this essay for Catholics: the USCCB is utterly outside of its domain in providing commentary regarding the issue of birthright citizenship. Their job is to save souls, not dictate what is, and what is not, constitutional. Even though the current pontiff is reportedly a registered Republican, the USCCB has essentially become an arm of the Democratic Party. If they want to admonish politicians, they might consider beginning with the “Catholic” abortion promoters that are rife within that party, from the federal to the state and local levels.
Not everything is spelled out specifically in the U.S. Constitution. When it was written, there were certain understandings in common law already in place. It takes good historians and lawyers to know exactly what those understandings were.
Perhaps THE most important one was “natural born” citizen, especially as it applied to qualifications for the presidency. As such, “natural born” citizen in 1787 meant that both your parents were already citizens. However, some have argued that only the father needed to be, but there is no question it required at least your dear old dad.
It was World Net Daily that actually brought this up regarding Barack Obama being properly “natural born” in order to qualify for the presidency. If you are old enough to recall, the whole squeal was whether or not he was born in Kenya or Hawaii. WND called it “wrong premise,” but it was a bridge too far for most conservatives in Congress and in conservative media. The point was buried soon afterwards.
You also might recall that there was a typical red herring brought out at the same time about John McCain, since he was born to a military family that was stationed in the Canal Zone. How absurd this question becomes can be seen right away: it is alright for the media to question the “natural born” citizenship of the son and grandson of naval admirals on duty serving their country but is not politically correct to question the “natural born” status of Obama, Harris, or so-called “anchor babies”?
But it served its purpose in deflecting attention from the true problem of Obama. Since he escaped authentic scrutiny, the new precedent changed, all to the benefit of Kamala Harris, neither of whose parents were citizens when she was born.
If Obama’s true father was Barack Obama, Sr., then he would not have been eligible, according to the 1787 common law. However, I believe his real father was ultra-Marxist and obscene leftist Frank Marshall Davis, an American citizen. Look up his image, as well as that of Obama, Sr., and place them alongside Barry Soetoro (another alias for the former president) and come to your own conclusions.
But that would have been more damaging to Obama, Jr., for it would have opened up the allegation of a fraudulent biography, and no accusations of “racism” would have helped his cause.
So, what is birthright citizenship? One must first study the operative element of the post-Civil War 14th amendment. I have previously written articles on its fraudulent approval, which violated Article V of the Constitution, but since few people want to go there, this article will take the 14th on its face value. Here is the appropriate clause:
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.
This was meant to apply to the freed slaves. Period.
Thus, if we accept “original intent,” the 14th does not apply to criminals who sneak across our borders, deliver a baby, and use him or her to be “anchored” as U.S. citizens. But, of course, “original intent” is one side of a contentious coin, the other being “current interpretation,” which means that the Constitution is a “living document” and can mean whatever the majority of justices on the Supreme Court say it means.
Thus, like so many propaganda slogans, such as “People’s Democratic Republic” or “Women’s Clinic for Reproductive Health,” they mean the exact opposite of what the superficial title indicates. Ergo, a “living constitution,” if it can mean anything you want, is not living at all, but dead.
Quite dead.
There are statutes that intend to take care of the nuances of constitutional directives. Constitutions are not meant to be legislation, but merely guidelines. However, of all our amendments, the 14th is so tiresomely long that it amounts to virtual legislation, an indication that its application was troublesome to many at the time of its adoption … which it certainly was throughout the North (the South was being illegally prevented any representation during the 14th’s tour through Congress).
Here are some hypotheticals which I once posed before an INS bureaucrat who agreed to talk via speaker phone to one of my constitutional law classes, sometime in the 1990s. It is no guarantee that he was speaking accurately, or that his answers are still relevant (due to court cases or legislation), and neither is my own memory a guarantee:
Question: A woman sneaks across the U.S. border, delivers a baby, is caught and deported with her son. Does this child possess U.S. citizenship?
Answer: Yes, but he would need to have documents proving his citizenship, and he would not be accepted into the U.S. until his 21st birthday or unless his mother was subsequently legally admitted sometime before his 21st birthday.
Question: Would this person be eligible to someday run for president?
Answer: Yes. (As might be expected, the agent did not understand “original intent”).
Question: If a tourist is vacationing in the U.S. and delivers a baby, is that baby entitled to U.S. citizenship?
Answer: No.
(Confirmed here: The State Department’s 2020 rule change made it more difficult for birth tourism companies to continue operations. The amended rule confirmed “that travel to the United States with the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States is an impermissible basis for the issuance of a B nonimmigrant visa.”)
Question: A diplomat and his family enter the U.S. and a baby is born, outside of the embassy grounds of the diplomat. Is this child entitled to U.S. citizenship?
Answer: No. (See here.)
Question: So, apparently there are exceptions to the claim that merely being born in the U.S. is sufficiently adequate for “birthright citizenship.” How, then, are these exceptions determined: by statute, bureaucracy, or court cases? And why would a person who entered the country legally, as with a tourist or a diplomat, be denied, while a criminal would not?
Answer: I’m afraid I cannot answer that question until I research it myself (and this was in the days before the internet).
It should be obvious, then, that the usual dogpile on Trump’s policy regarding birthright citizenship is merely another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome by the Democratic Party’s mouthpiece, the “legacy media”, and unfortunately, the USCCB. For too long, the U.S. has been a total chump regarding the 14th amendment’s application. Trump deserves to be supported in this effort of cleansing our government from leftist policies whose ultimate goal is to destroy our sovereignty.
I must admit that to be entirely constitutional, Donald Trump’s executive orders regarding “birthright citizenship” ought to be passed by Congress. But, doesn’t the 14th amendment need to be “constitutional,” according to the rules set in Article V?
That is where the argument ought to be settled. It would, of course, be an earthquake for bar associations, judges and politicians, and even conservative citizens. In Part 2, I will explain the laughably obvious reason why the 14th is utterly an illegitimate part of the Constitution.
It is through ignorance or deliberate flaunting of the Constitution that has created the cultural, political, and legal mess we are in. It could never correct itself on its own. It needs to have a jolting realization that we have made a mockery of our own legitimacy of government.
If Donald Trump is not quite right, he is on the right track.
