Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[Skylar]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

The common law cited by the court granted birthright citizenship to any child, even born to two aliens, based merely on the location of birth.

The only time circumstances come into play is in the case of diplomats, invading armies, etc, where the parents weren't subject to US law. Illegals clearly are subject to US law (lest we couldn't deport them). Making this an uphill battle.

The overwhelming legal consensus on this issue is that Trump's argument is fucked.

Don't think so pal.

And part of the definition of "domiciled' is that it is the LEGAL residence, and in Section 93 of the US vrs Wong Kim Ark decision they further stipulate that the aliens must here with "the permission of the United States" and Illegal Aliens FAIL on both counts.

The issue at question was allegiance. This was what the court spent elaborate time in describing, defining and discussing the history of. With their determination as follows:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto.

Wong Kim Ark v. US

This is the core of the ruling. And by those definitions Wong (or any kid born to an illegal) would meet it. Now here is where it gets sticky:

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

'under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto? A credible argument could be made that illegals don't meet this standard. You might get some wiggle room on 'under the protection of the government' as illegals still have rights, access to due process, protection from the police and military etc. And that is arguably protection.

But temporary allegiance? That's much muddier. Its harder to argue that an illegal immigrant has a temporary allegiance to the US. Though if you were to interpret the 'temporary allegiance' as being subject to US laws (as all mention of ambassadors and the like would support), then illegals would meet it.

However, after exhaustive historical citations the court does offer us this statement which strongly supports the 'temporary allegience' is somehow tied to being allowed to remain in the US:

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark v US.

The ruling does put some serious weight on 'being under the jurisdiction of' being associated with being permitted to be the US. Linking this to permenant domiciles as well.

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Wong Kim Ark

So on further reading, you may have a point. Being permitted to be in the US seems to be explicitly linked to both permanent domicil and allegiance in the Wong Kim Ark ruling. And the cases the court cited in support of such a conclusion.

 

[Claudette]

Oh you think these illegals have allegiance to the US?? I doubt that.

They are here without the permission of the US. They are illegals who have no legal domicile in this country.

All they are here for is the money to send home, to have kids, who are then entitled under this amendment to everything this country has to offer.

Good deal for them. Bad deal for we taxpayers who are forced to support them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh you think these illegals have allegiance to the US?? I doubt that.

They are here without the permission of the US. They are illegals who have no legal domicile in this country.

All they are here for is the money to send home, to have kids, who are then entitled under this amendment to everything this country has to offer.

Good deal for them. Bad deal for we taxpayers who are forced to support them.

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

 

[Syriusly]

The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted...
The Court noted that children born to parents domiciled in the United States are certainly citizens- but by their own analysis pointed out that anyone in the United States is subject to jurisdiction of the United States- and thus subject to the 14th Amendment.

And part of the definition of "domiciled' is that it is the LEGAL residence, and in Section 93 of the US vrs Wong Kim Ark decision they further stipulate that the aliens must here with "the permission of the United States" and Illegal Aliens FAIL on both counts.

Wong Kim Ark did not say that aliens 'must be here with the permission of the United States'.

However Plyler v. Doe says very clearly that anyone born here, even the children of illegal aliens is subject to the jurisdiction- since the 14th Amendment rests on 'jurisdiction'- not 'permission'- the court has agreed with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

The key point is the question of whether they have domicile in the US and they do not since that requires legal entry with the permission of the US.

The case law in the two cases you cite simply assumes that domicile is based on where they live while Wong Kim Ark states specifically that it must be LEGAL residence and leg domicile status.
.

You can ignore what the Supreme Court has said if you want to- but Plyer v. Doe makes it very clear that anyone in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

And the reason for that goes to another Supreme Court decision- Plyer v. Doe- which addresses the term 'jurisdiction'

Plyler v. Doe (1982) and Jurisdiction
In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws.


Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:


I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.


Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented aliens often claim that these children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and hence, should not be granted citizenship.


In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:


impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”


Justice Gray concluded that:


[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

And finally- the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the child born in the United States to an illegal alien is by birth- a U.S. Citizen.

INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

In my opinion- if you want to change Birth Right citizenship- you need a Constitutional Amendment- however, an attempt to change the 14th Amendment by legislation would drive a case to the courts, and would confirm the courts interpretation.

Under the clear language of the 14th Amendment, I can't see how the court could come to any conclusion other than its current one.

 

[Syriusly]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

And why not pass a Constitutional Amendment in a States Constitutional Article V Convention anyway? There are plenty more corrections we can make while we have the hood up.

And there is the rub.

You and many others would be very, very willing to make other 'corrections' to the Constitution- and I doubt you would like the 'corrections' I would make- and i doubt I would like all of the corrections you would make.

Could you find consensus and write a Constitution as amazing as our original Constitution?

Hell we can't even get an immigration bill passed- there is no 'consensus' on how to fix our immigration issue(s).

 

[Syriusly]

More opinions that agree the 14th Amendment does not COMPELL giving citizenship


Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

"The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.

Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.

That’s not the law. It has never been the law.

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?

No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


Birthright Not The Law, Never Has Been | Opinion - Conservative

"An interesting question from The Federalist:

"Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance."

If an illegal alien from Canada comes into New York and robs a bank- is that illegal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- or Canada?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wong Kim Ark did not say that aliens 'must be here with the permission of the United States'.

Yes it did, dude. Can you fucking read?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

However Plyler v. Doe says very clearly that anyone born here, even the children of illegal aliens is subject to the jurisdiction- since the 14th Amendment rests on 'jurisdiction'- not 'permission'- the court has agreed with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

That decision ruled on the due process rights of illegal aliens which still exist even without citizenship. It does not decree that the children of illegals are citizens.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More opinions that agree the 14th Amendment does not COMPELL giving citizenship


Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

"The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.

Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.

That’s not the law. It has never been the law.

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?

No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


Birthright Not The Law, Never Has Been | Opinion - Conservative

"An interesting question from The Federalist:

"Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance."

If an illegal alien from Canada comes into New York and robs a bank- is that illegal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- or Canada?

By criminal law jurisdiction it is the place of the crime, but that is not what Wong case resolved. If the man had died in Canada, his estate would be under the laws of Canada. I am not arguing that the person is not subject to the laws of the US, arguing that the illegal parents do not meet the conditions for citizenship established in US v Wong Kim Ark.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

And why not pass a Constitutional Amendment in a States Constitutional Article V Convention anyway? There are plenty more corrections we can make while we have the hood up.

And there is the rub.

You and many others would be very, very willing to make other 'corrections' to the Constitution- and I doubt you would like the 'corrections' I would make- and i doubt I would like all of the corrections you would make.

Could you find consensus and write a Constitution as amazing as our original Constitution?

Hell we can't even get an immigration bill passed- there is no 'consensus' on how to fix our immigration issue(s).

Well go hide and cry in a corner because we are going to get an Article V Convention, because our legal schools are so fucked up they cannot teach jurists to actually read cases like US v Wong Kim Ark.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

According to US v Wong Kim Ark, "Domiciled" requires legal permanent residence with the permission of the USA.

If your narrow reading of the 14th is correct, then why are not the children of diplomats not also citizens by birthright as well?

And finally- the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the child born in the United States to an illegal alien is by birth- a U.S. Citizen.

INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

That child was already given citizenship based on the current law, not the 14th amendment. Congress may expand the franchise as it sees fit, but the minimum guarantee of what is a citizen does not require it be given to the children of illegal aliens.

 

[IronFist]

Trump is right. We need to stop it. In a few generations there will be just no Americans at all. I mean that there will be no white Americans but it seems like no one cares about us. We will be soon outnumbered by Hispanics and Blacks.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

Wong Kim Ark v US.

The ruling does put some serious weight on 'being under the jurisdiction of' being associated with being permitted to be the US. Linking this to permenant domiciles as well.

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Wong Kim Ark

So on further reading, you may have a point. Being permitted to be in the US seems to be explicitly linked to both permanent domicil and allegiance in the Wong Kim Ark ruling. And the cases the court cited in support of such a conclusion.

The SCOTUS ruling only defined, as I understand it, the most narrow Constitutional interpretation of what the 14th Amendment guarantees for citizenship for those born here.

But Congress can extend the franchise even further by law or just defacto practice to include every soul on the freaking planet if it wanted to.

So case law that states that someone is a citizen is irrelevant if that is not the issue being addressed as they may be simply addressing the current statutory law rather than intending to expand the 14th Amendment or the restriction spelled out in the Wong Kim Ark decision.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump is right. We need to stop it. In a few generations there will be just no Americans at all. I mean that there will be no white Americans but it seems like no one cares about us. We will be soon outnumbered by Hispanics and Blacks.

Ahhh! You said 'white American' without apologizing...I'm gonna tell on you

 

[Syriusly]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

According to US v Wong Kim Ark, "Domiciled" requires legal permanent residence with the permission of the USA.

If your narrow reading of the 14th is correct, then why are not the children of diplomats not also citizens by birthright as well?

.

Children of diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction- just as their parents are not- of the United States.

Joe Blow from France robs a bank in Omaha- he gets arrested and thrown in jail

Joe Blow, the Ambassador of France, robs a bank in Omaha- the United States can at most, cancel his diplomatic credential and expel him from the United States.

'subject to the jurisdiction of'

As dealt with in Plyler v. Doe.

 

[Syriusly]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

According to US v Wong Kim Ark, "Domiciled" requires legal permanent residence with the permission of the USA.

If your narrow reading of the 14th is correct, then why are not the children of diplomats not also citizens by birthright as well?

And finally- the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the child born in the United States to an illegal alien is by birth- a U.S. Citizen.

INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

That child was already given citizenship based on the current law, not the 14th amendment. Congress may expand the franchise as it sees fit, but the minimum guarantee of what is a citizen does not require it be given to the children of illegal aliens.

The child was a U.S. citizen because the child was born in the United States- which the Supreme Court considered so obvious that they just mentioned it in passing.

If you want to argue that 'born in the United States' predates the 14th Amendment, I wouldn't disagree with you- because it actually did predate the 14th Amendment for white people.

INS v. Rios-Pineda 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

 

[JimBowie1958]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

According to US v Wong Kim Ark, "Domiciled" requires legal permanent residence with the permission of the USA.

If your narrow reading of the 14th is correct, then why are not the children of diplomats not also citizens by birthright as well?

.

Children of diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction- just as their parents are not- of the United States.

Joe Blow from France robs a bank in Omaha- he gets arrested and thrown in jail

Joe Blow, the Ambassador of France, robs a bank in Omaha- the United States can at most, cancel his diplomatic credential and expel him from the United States.

'subject to the jurisdiction of'

As dealt with in Plyler v. Doe.

And Joe-Blow the illegal immigrant from France gets deported instead. That is why we have extradition treaties with countries so that they can have their citizens back and tried under the laws of their homeland if things are amicable enough.

Joe Blow the Diplomats cook is also not allowed to spawn children that are citizens of the USA though they can be arrested.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The child was a U.S. citizen because the child was born in the United States- which the Supreme Court considered so obvious that they just mentioned it in passing.

That is merely conjecture on your part. and there was no ruling on citizenship via Anchor Baby laws.

 

[aris2chat]

Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

the idea of anchor babies is because of footnote by justice brennan

sorry but illegal foreign aliens don't get a pass, nor their children.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

the idea of anchor babies is because of footnote by justice brennan

sorry but illegal foreign aliens don't get a pass, nor their children.

I love this point here:
"For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such “plausible distinction(s)” before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than “lives within walking distance.”

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen."

Brennan's footnote is not the ruling but explicatory of his reasoning for his ruling that BIA had the jurisdiction and could hold up proceedings, if I recall correctly. That was the judgement delivered, not the comment on the children of illegals being citizens. Had Brennan said that chocolate milkshakes were mandated by the constitution in some side note, I guess the sale of strawberry and vanilla milkshakes would be considered a Constitutional mandate by the chattering Political Class today.

The Political Class is daft, bankrupt of new ideas and committed to maintaining a freeze on existing axioms that they find to their advantage in today's political-economic system.

That is why we need a barbarian like Trump to tear down the gates and cull the elitist herd.