Who let this go through on something as basic as the US Constitution? “Can birthright citizenship be repealed? Breaking down Trump’s proposal.”It looks like another anti-Trump dig, poke, and scree.
How dare you make these little children “stateless,” never mentioning their mothers for putting them in such legal jeopardy.
And so much for “objective” reporting. You may have heard of it (or not). Presenting all sides of an issue so we can decide for ourselves. No chance. The spoon-feeding continues in this runup to Trump’s second term and his adamant position that illegal immigration will end (as much as possible), as will the idea of birthright citizenship (immigration and birthright tourism).
Citizen Journalist Booey, commenting on my “Can We Now Say “Citizen Journalism > MSM”?” noticed this on the WMUR post:
Channel 9 currently has a piece on their site about the 14th Amendment and it starts off with “Birthright citizenship guarantees that every child born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ legal status.” This is a lie, what the 14th actually says is printed directly below that “”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. They actually re-worded the Constitution to fit their narrative, maybe that’s why the viewers no longer view.
https://www.wmur.com/article/trump-repeal-birthright-citizenship/63248884
I’ve saved off that page for posterity just in case they try a “stealth edit.” However, the part that Bob noticed is this (look at the bolded part):
Birthright citizenship guarantees that every child born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ legal status.
This law is protected under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. It states:
While the 14th Amendment (Section 1) has a very different wording – and legally important:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Those two bolded parts are wildly different and mean two different things. I am amazed that somebody at WMUR didn’t notice the discrepancy right away from this Lauren Lee (who does not appear on their News Staff page but I would think her submission would be under the aegis of Marissa Barrett, KC Downey, or Kirk Enstrom who are the digital honchos at WMUR. Meaning, they had no clue.
If you take “within the jurisdiction“, that pretty much means anyone on American land is automatically a US Citizen. All that is needed is that you are physically present and, presumably, alive. And that’s the gist of what much of the Left wants you to believe; it’s their “cover.”
Well, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one here on the ‘Grok, but I can read, and I parse wordings fairly closely. This was NEVER the intent of lawmakers when crafting the 14th – it was to insure that those people that had been enslaved were then recognized to be full citizens after the Civil War (which I dryly note, were present and alive). Further, once recognized, when mothers had babies, they were automatically granted US citizenship as well.
Historically, slaves on American soil were ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – all laws included. Thus, deserved citizenship. Now, the piece does mention US vs Wong Kim Ark and how the Supreme Court, back then, interpreted that phrase and decided that “dropping a baby” made that baby a US citizen (and yes, Wong was an adult at the time).
However, the piece is one-sided and only presents one ideological/legal side. In the last few years, given the tremendous influx of illegal aliens coming into the US and ignoring our “jurisdictional” laws, claims have been made by the Left that why punish US Citizen children because of the illegal acts by their parents? Frankly, I agree with Tom Homan – it will be the parents that have already made the decision to split their families IF they decide to be heartless and leave their children behind thinking that just being on US soil “saves” them all.
So the question arises – if an illegal alien mother arrives on our shores, isn’t that illegal still subject to the jurisdiction of the country from whence they came? After all, if similar foreign parents send their young children to the US alone (abandoned to human traffickers), if the child arrives, do they get automatic citizenship? Of course not.
There are a number of legal experts, mostly on the Right, that have said that this use of the 14th has been stretched beyond its original intent – to make slaves free men and women. Yet, this piece completely ignores this side of the argument.
BTW, IF the parents become naturalized, or if one IS already a US Citizen, I have no problem with the baby being granted citizenship – a citizenship lineage has already been established.
Which proves, once again, the Leftward cant of WMUR, its reporters and management, as well as the Hearst organization itself, in distorting the word “objective”.
And from a FAR greater authority than I on the Law:
“It’s not in the Constitution. … It’s not in any of the legislative history for the 14th Amendment. … It’s not in the 1866 Civil Rights Act,” Levin explains.
The 14th Amendment “was intended to ensure that black people were emancipated in every respect and citizens of the United States. It had nothing to do with immigration, legal or illegal,” he adds.
Further, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
“Congress has never passed a federal statute that confers birthright citizenship,” Levin explains. “So it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not in federal law, it’s not in the legislative history, and yet it is being used.”
Why?
This piece ain’t objective.
