11-16-2018 03:20:54 PM -0800
11-16-2018 10:35:46 AM -0800
11-15-2018 12:43:42 PM -0800
11-15-2018 09:56:23 AM -0800
11-15-2018 06:55:51 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Trump, the 14th Amendment, the Caravan, and the Constitution

In today's installment of exploding heads, President Trump has proposed to overturn, via executive order, the constitutionally dubious "birthright citizenship" interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There's no question he has the authority to issue such an order in his capacity as president and commander-in-chief -- each of the three branches is equally responsible for fidelity to the Constitution, and each is free to interpret it as it sees fit.

That the 14th amendment -- the centerpiece of the Reconstruction Amendments passed and ratified under the Johnson and Grant administrations, but proposed and voted in by the Radical Republicans in Congress -- applies specifically and only to the newly freed slaves is clear not only from its historical context, but to its very language:

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.

The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The Court later ruled, in the Wong Kim Ark decision (1898), that children born to foreign diplomats, or born to enemy soldiers occupying U.S. territory, were not protected under the 14th, as they were clearly not under American jurisdiction. (Neither were American Indians, until 1924.) But then, neither are illegal alien invaders, who openly proclaim their contempt for American immigration law even as they march toward our southern border.

Further, our immigration laws were designed for lawful immigration, with some carve-outs for genuine refugees and asylum-seekers. What they were not designed to do is absorb a calculated onslaught of lawbreakers with no beneficent intent; instead, these people are very clear about their purpose: to manipulate the loopholes of the laws, force entry, earn money, and send it back home to their "countries" of origin -- three of which (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) are among the most savage and violent places on earth. America has no domestic need for these people, and no moral obligation to admit them, especially under these circumstances. There is no war ongoing in their homelands (the violence is entirely of their own making, and cultural patrimony) and economic "refugees" can apply through proper channels like everybody else. America is a sovereign nation, not an international charity.

(I disagree with my good friend John Yoo on this one. You can read his learned defense of birthright citizenship here.)

And yet red-diaper baby organizations such as the ACLU continue to insist that "birthright citizenship" is constitutional, using the fig leaf of the Ark decision (but Ark himself, although excluded from American citizenship at the time by the anti-Chinese laws in effect, was a legal immigrant, born of legally admitted parents and hence subject to American jurisdiction). Worse, they couch their deliberate misreading of the 14th amendment in "moral" terms: