How many of us have tortured ourselves by reading the 14th Amendment in its entirety? I understand that, other than the first section, with its opening sentence, the remaining four sections amount to the irrelevancy of being unrelated from the amendment’s original purpose of granting citizenship to those who gained freedom after the Civil War.
When average-minded citizens can recognize these add-ons as being unrelated, just how did this bloated amendment gain passage? Consider its original calling of granting citizenship versus such mundane matters as apportionment of representatives, qualifications for office, or questionings of public debt! The fact that this word fest of the miscellaneous was voted on and approved by Congress is nothing more than a blatant insult and abuse to the amendment process!
Our Constitution is a document that continues to be regarded with wonderment and worldwide acclaim. It certainly wasn’t written to become fertile ground for such legalese and the mischief that is usually its companion. When reading that opener, “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 werein they reside,” what else is needed?
Of the two Senators who wrote this amendment, Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull, Trumbull’s authoring of what is known as “the Citizenship Clause,” which states, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” has captured attention and spurred debate. Over the years, these words have become a bone of contention, especially with regard to our recent situation of open borders and the unconstitutional policies of the previous administration.
This blatant dereliction has attracted pregnant women from around the world to illegally enter our country before giving birth to their child, which now is commonly referred to as an “anchor baby.” This designation alludes to the end result, which this child offers to an awaiting family, which then can also enter America based upon that child’s citizenship. The insanity of rewarding an illegal with a grant of citizenship to her child has caused this debate, which, in addition to ignoring her original criminal act of entry, centers upon Sen. Trumbull’s clause.
The meaning of the Senator’s clause, by his own words, is “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Somehow, those endorsing this gift willingly disregard the need to certify one’s allegiance, which is also an embedded qualification for becoming a naturalized citizen.
Long before today’s legal dilemma, it wasn’t too long after the amendment’s 1868 passage that mischief appeared with the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. “They held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens.” This quote was from a 2018 Matthew Spalding Wall Street Journal article. He is a dean of Constitutional Studies at Hillsdale College. Mr Spalding writes, “The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.” The “clause” that Mr. Spalding references is the one from Sen. Trumbull.
One final clarification by Mr. Spalding; “Few developed nations…practice the rule of jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ More common is jus sanguinis, ‘right of blood,’ by which a child’s citizenship is determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.” Think back to Sen. McCain.
This point of law was well known to our Founders. Yet for such a fact to have any effect upon today’s governing, many career politicians must strive to live up to Sen. Trumbull’s allegiance qualifier! However, if their voting record is any indication, this expectation might be too much since that places doubt upon their allegiance, which, if taken seriously, would question their current status!
