The Problem of Inequality by Stephen Cox | Posted September 05, 2015
A Choice Not an Echo . . . Please by S.H. Chambers | Posted September 02, 2015
T. S. A.
kentucky law

Anchor baby / 14th amendment

Mark Levin, a considerable student of the Constitution, quickly and publicly challenged Bush to come on his show to discuss the issue. Thus far, Bush has refused by simply ignoring the invitation altogether... Mark appeared on Sean Hannity’s TV show the other night (hat tip to Breitbart) and said this of those who are, like Bush, making the 14th Amendment say something it doesn’t say:

"Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens. So the Supreme Court never ruled, even if they did, it would be wrong. The clause speaks for itself, the author of the clause made it abundantly, unequivocally clear, let’s add another thing, let’s read the clause together, shall we?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Let’s stop there. If it means what the proponents of birthright citizenship say, it would stop right there. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens. There’s no need for anything else, but that’s what it says. Then it says, and, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Now, you have slip and fall lawyers, some phony constitutional lawyers, they have "Esquire" after their name, they come on TV, they go all over the place, "Jurisdiction means geography." Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography. Zero. It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America. How do we know it? Because they said it. And they also excluded everybody that the left, and some of the Republicans want to include.

Now here’s the good news, there’s another part of the Constitution. It’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Here’s what that says, in plain English. "The Congress shall have power to… establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Now, you know what that means, that means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE, it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard. And guess what, Sean, in the 1920s, that’s exactly what it did. The 14th Amendment excludes Indians, that is Native Americans, as U.S. citizens, because they felt that they had allegiance to their own national tribes. Okay, great, and I believe it was in 1923, Congress reversed course, and said, "You know what? Under the 14th Amendment and under this Article I, we’ve decided to grant citizenship, national citizenship to all Native Americans."

  • United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

    "legally domiciled and resident there at the time"

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a child born in the United States of Chinese citizens, who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who were carrying on business there other than for the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.[1] This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

    Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco around 1871, to Chinese parents legally domiciled and resident there at the time, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed the specific circumstances of his birth, which included that he was the child of foreigners permanently domiciled and resident in the U.S. at the time of birth.