Sunday, August 23, 2015

Born in the U.S.A.? There is no “Birthright Citizenship” in the U.S. Constitution

By Teri O'Brien

I think that many of you are catching on to something that I have been ranting about for several years; specifically, that nearly 100% of the alleged “experts” on television, including those on the supposedly “conservative” cable network, are suffering from a pernicious ailment. Symptoms include the inability to think critically, the incessant repetition of ridiculous clichés, and the desperate desire to fit in with the liberals who control their social circles. Regular listeners to The Teri O’Brien Show know that I have named this malady “East Coast Brain Rot,” and it has been on prominent display since Donald Trump released his excellent immigration plan last weekend.

Why do people like Dana Perino, Stephen Moore and any number of other commentators, some of whom actually claim to be lawyers, persist in saying that the 14th amendment mandates that we continue the suicidal practice of allowing illegal alien invaders to unilaterally grant citizenship to their spawn just by breaking the law? I don’t care whether they sneak across the border, or fly first class as part of a luxury “birth tourism” adventure, the notion that they have the right to confer citizenship on anyone, by deliberately, and with pre-meditation, violating our laws is idiotic and nonsensical on its face. Pay attention, Dana, Stephen, Judge Napolitano and the rest of you because I need to educate you. You are wrong about birthright citizenship. Ridding ourselves of this magnet for illegals does not require a Constitutional amendment. It requires only a statute passed by Congress, which has absolute authority over conferring citizenship.

Once again, when they are seeking to suck up to their liberal puppet masters, the mush-headed, East Coast Brain Rot afflicted ignore the unambiguous language of the Constitution. They cite the 14th amendment’s words: “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,” choosing to completely ignore the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If the authors of this amendment intended to confer citizenship on anyone born in the United States, they would not have needed to add the additional language. Even the genius talking heads on TV should be able to understand that.

As Prof. Edward J Erler, writing in National Review, explains :

"[D}uring debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

"Nor was this the only legislation concerning birthright citizenship that Congress passed following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. As mentioned above, there was almost unanimous agreement among its framers that the amendment did not extend citizenship to Indians. Although born in the U.S., they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe-by-tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become a citizen. Thus Congress used its legislative authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A constitutional amendment is no more required today than it was in 1923."

If we elect a conservative, committed to American sovereignty, who understands that without a border, we don’t have a nation, we can make this happen, and join most of the nations on earth that don’t give citizenship to anyone born on their soil.

Why must pundits and politicians who are supposedly on our side, and by “our side,” I mean on the side of standing up for America and our values, including national sovereignty, constantly adopt the language and “facts” (read “fairy tales”) that liberals believe? Do they break out in a cold sweat thinking about not being able to hang out with the “cool kids” at the next cocktail party or think tank soirée? Or are they just intellectually stunted? Maybe there’s something in the water. Please comment below with your answer.

Cross posted at

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, the flagship show of the Informed America Radio network, The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in vivid red, white and blue, Sundays 5-7 pm Eastern time (4-6 pm Central) at and, and anytime on demand on iHeart Radio, Stitcher Radio, and iTunes.

No comments:

Post a Comment