Trump v DeSantis: Round 8 - Birthright Citizenship

Posted On: Wednesday - May 31st 2023 12:10PM MST
In Topics: 
  Immigration Stupidity  Trump  President DeSantis

This scam has both a legal and an illegal side to it.

Only one punch as been thrown in this round in the Trump v DeSantis fight*, but this was a good one. Peak Stupidity has stated before that we'd like to see plenty of words, hell, punches too, fly between Trump and DeSantis, as long as they were about THE ISSUES. The "DeSanctimonous" and "Meatball Ron" stuff is both stupid and worthless.

I want to see a good fight. That means good discussion, loud arguments, nasty tweets, WHATEVER, so long as they bring out the problems that need to be out there in the open. Regarding the existential Immigration Invasion issue, the Anchor Baby loophole, aka "Birthright Citizenship" is a very big part of the problem. We have mentioned this scam before, but only briefly, such as in a post of right at 3 years back (during Trump's last year as Pres.) that so happened to be titled Give Trump a Break - ummm, NO, no more breaks. For the legal-eagle take by Ann Coulter, see FOX NEWS Anchored In Stupidity On 14th Amendment. We also have a kind of rant about it here.

This post comes by way of yesterday's James Fulford article on VDare, rump Promises To Abolish Birthright Citizenship, To Usual Shock, Horror (Your Move, DeSantis!). Off of Breitbart news (surprisingly, VDare's link to Breitbart is no good right now):
Former President Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner for president in 2024, rolled out a new policy pledge on Tuesday in which he promised if elected he would sign an executive order on day one of his second term in office effectively ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and so-called “birth tourism.”
First day in office! Yeah, sure, that'll happen. Last time, per Mr. Fulford:
Yes, I know Trump may not keep this promise. He promised it when he was in office, and then kept letting himself be talked out of it.
This Anchor Baby loophole is a BIG part of the immigration invasion. It has both legal and illegal components, I mean, if you assume the deal is legal to begin with. Those who break into the country via the southern (and now quite often, northern) border and those who get in through ports-of-entry airports just have to stick around long enough to have a baby or two, even, if by a stroke of extremely bad luck, American ICE agents end up finding them. The child is, ipso facto, somehow an American citizen.

The rich Chinese woman getting sent to Seattle to pop out a bug-out baby*** is an example of the "legal" component. She just came to see the Space Needle, is all. Who knew she'd give birth that very week?

Well, I am glad to read about Trump's promise, whatever few Continental dollars it's worth. As a VDare tweet, not Trump himself, said, "Ron DeSantis, your move?" Yes, I want to hear exactly what Ron DeSantis thinks about this. Let's get the problem out in the open for all Americans to understand the details of. VDare and Peak Stupidity can't do it all, you know!

If Trump had gone through with an Executive Order 6 damn years ago, that would have stemmed multiple millions of these "birthrights". It's not that I believe in the concept of the President making law, but a deal for a temporary halt until, say, the fairly Conservative SCROTUS got on it would have been a great way to do it. Unfortunately, Trump is no good with, like, plans and shit...

If Ron DeSantis says nothing about this issue, then I've lost a lot of hope in him. If he agrees with the idea that Trump just put out there, then I will be thrilled, as he has a pretty good record of doing the things he's promised.

Donald Trump is a bullshitter. I do write that to distinguish him from a liar. That's important. For this example, I don't doubt that he would like to do what he stated in the 3-minute video as reported by Breitbart. He just may not get around to it, is all. He doesn't sweat that "getting around to it" stuff so awfully much ...

Elwood Blues explains the concept to his brother Jake, well, sort of:

"What was I gonna do, take away your only hope?" Fitting, huh?

* Previous posts: Part 1 - - Part 2 - - Part 3 - - Part 4 - - Part 5 - - Part 6, and Part 7.

** That column of hers is from August of '15. Miss Coulter's first paragraph:
Based on the hysterical flailing at Donald Trump—He's a buffoon! He's a clown! He calls people names! He's too conservative! He's not conservative enough! He won't give details! His details won't work!—I gather certain Republicans are determined to drive him from the race.
My, times have changed! Miss Coulter would agree with that "hysterical flailing" and "buffoon" bit today.

*** I gotta admit, I'm LOLing at myself for just coining that one. See, when the Commies drop the hammer on some corrupt $1200/mo salaried Chinese public official who owns a couple of 1 1/4 million dollar houses on the American west coast, he may need to bug out. That includes the money and the family. You just need a sponsor - oh, maybe his son who went to the UW can do it. How convenient!

Friday - June 2nd 2023 5:11AM MST
PS: Thanks again, Adam. That's very interesting stuff. It's a shame about birth during foreign travel stopping a real American from getting into office. (Oh, I mean, if anyone actually followed all that law anymore!) I imagine the Founders could see some real loopholes otherwise, and, of course, travel was much slower. Perhaps late-term pregnant women would stay home more, which is not a bad idea.

Mr. Blanc., that's why I think it'd be up to Congress to do this, the E.O. being some stop-gap measure to keep babies from being Grandfathered in. (Wait, what?!!) The law would stipulate how the INS and other bureaucracies would treat these now non-citizens. OTOH, I don't expect it would be followed either. The Swamp would have to be drained for real first.
Thursday - June 1st 2023 3:23PM MST
PS It’s almost a certainty that any executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship would be immediately overturned by the courts. Probably the only way to do it would be by constitutional amendment. And the chances of that happening are as close to zero as you can get. I wouldn’t count on DeSantis doing any such thing. He’s apparently trying to be the “not crazy” one, not that it’s likely to do him much good.
Adam Smith
Thursday - June 1st 2023 12:07PM MST
PS: Greetings, Achmed,

I believe that Congressman Bingham would say that someone born of American citizen parents but not in the US due to foreign travel would be a 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡 but not a 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧.

There are three elements essential to being a 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧. They are:

1. Born in the USA on U.S. Soil. (Jus Soli)
2. Father must be a U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized).
3. Mother must be a U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized).

Some people think of it as a three legged stool.
Remove any one leg and the stool falls over.

There are some exceptions that have been universally recognized for many years (centuries even!). John McCain, for example, was born in Coco Solo, Panama in 1936. John McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born on a U.S. Naval Base.

So, if you are born to two U.S. citizen parents on a U.S. military base abroad, you are still considered a natural born citizen.

The other exception had to do with ambassadors and diplomats. If the ambassador to England and his wife, who are both U.S. citizens, either by birth or naturalized, have a child in London, that child is still a natural born citizen.

These two exceptions seem reasonable enough to me. There are plenty of historical precedents in our common law (English common law) to back these claims.

Now, someone like Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada, is not a natural born citizen. At the time of his birth his mother was a U.S. citizen (born in Wilmington, Delaware) and his father was a Cuban citizen. (Rafael Cruz left Cuba in 1957 to attend the University of Texas at Austin and obtained political asylum in the United States after his four-year student visa expired. He earned Canadian citizenship in 1973 and became a naturalized United States citizen in 2005.)

So, Ted Cruz is ineligible to the presidency.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama ascended to the presidency even though he was not a natural born citizen. While Obama was born on U.S. soil in Hawaii and his mom was indeed a U.S. citizen (Ann Dunham was a natural born citizen) his Father was 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 a U.S. citizen. He was a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth. (He later became a citizen of Kenya when Kenya “gained independence” from the crown.)

So, most unfortunately, a precedent has been set.

I wonder if there were any other presidents who were not natural born citizens?

Anyway, I hope you have a great day!

Thursday - June 1st 2023 6:22AM MST
PS: Adam, I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to read your 2nd comment fully yesterday. That's a great explanation.

I'm curious what Congressman Bingham (long dead, I'm sure) would have to say about someone born of American citizen parents but not in the US due to foreign travel. He may HAVE to be by default, basically, as any SANE country would not deem him a citizen, were he born while his parents happened to be in said country.

"Clearly some powerful people want anchorbabies and foreigners to be eligible to the presidency." Indeed. They want Globalist control of this country. Some Americans lean just a little too Nationalist and patriotic.

Imagine Nikki Haley being involved in these decisions. You just know which side she'd lean. Then, Trump, the idiot, selected her to be US UN Ambassador. That'd have been great if it had been part of a plan which would involve pulling us out of the UN (and UN out of the US) the next year!

Wednesday - May 31st 2023 5:40PM MST
PS: I am glad you are back writing, Mr. Smith, and I hope you got a lot of actual stuff done in the meantime!

Trump would have had to have a PLAN, as in, the E.O., but then his AG or whoever (I don't know how it all works, but then I'm not the President who can get advise from the wonks) and take a case up to the SCROTUS to get a decision. I guess some lower court would have worked. I know, I know, the judges all hate him, but you've got to know who is on your side.

So, I meant, get this BC thing blocked but also press for a ruling somewhere or a law made. After all, believe it or not, Trump had a GOP House and Senate to work with. Again, I know.. they all hated him, but no, not really all, and that's why you make deals. Example, instead of working against immigration patriot Jeff Sessions out of plain spite, how about threaten campaign derailments - something Trump was very good at getting done - for those who didn't play ball.

Yes, that's the definition, and they ignore or purposefully misinterpret that part "𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐟". Also, when you think about the SPIRIT of the law (Amend. XIV), not just the letter of it, this was about former slaves, not anchor babies.
Adam Smith
Wednesday - May 31st 2023 3:32PM MST
PS: Me again,

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”. Vattel (Law of Nations)

“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers.” Vattel (Law of Nations)

“To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent. It is almost a universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it, that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent.” Bar (International Law , No. 31)

When one reads through the documents of the day it is overwhelmingly clear that the founders not only debated whether simply being a citizen or “born a citizen” should be enough to qualify one for the presidency but that they ultimately rejected the idea in favor of Vattel’s “natural born citizen”. This is no accident. These men chose their words very carefully when penning that document.

When Alexander Hamilton delivered to the Constitutional Convention a proposed draft of the US Constitution, his proposal was that the President must be “a citizen of one of the states or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”.

In response to this proposal, Congress was warned that it would open the Presidency to the possibility of foreign influence.

Future Chief Justice John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington…

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Recognizing the danger, Congress rejected the proposal of “born a citizen”, and instead inserted the much more strict requirement of a “natural born citizen”. They are not the same thing, as anyone reading the definition clearly understands.

The correct understanding has been known throughout US history until it recently became politically inconvenient.

For example, on June 2, 1924, Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.

Why would they do that if everyone born on our magic soil was already a citizen under the 14th?

The civil rights act became law on April 9, 1866, and provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th amendment was ratified, John Elk, who was an Indian (feather not •) went to the Supremes to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supremes ruled that the 14th amendment did not grant Indians, or the children of non-citizens, citizenship.

During a debate regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-date, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents and born in the US.

Here’s another pair of quotes from Bingham, an author of the 14th amendment…

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” – John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section

“All from other lands, who by the terms of congressional laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”- (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

There are many examples of this understanding through out history…

“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.” – “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))

“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” – The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there were eight different congressional attempts to alter the Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee.

Here are those links…

Clearly some powerful people want anchorbabies and foreigners to be eligible to the presidency.

Unsurprisingly, most of the articles I’ve read in support of the elimination of the “natural born citizen” requirement come from immigrants and foreigners themselves.

The evidence is overwhelming that the framers did not intend the children of foreigners who owed allegiance to a foreign power at the time of their birth to ascend to the presidency.


Adam Smith
Wednesday - May 31st 2023 3:25PM MST
PS: Greetings, Mr. Moderator,

I've been lazy about commenting lately, kinda busy with work, but I have been reading the posts and comments everyday. I hope you, the Newman family, and the rest of the peak stupidity commenters are all doing well.

“If Trump had gone through with an Executive Order 6 damn years ago...”

Then the Biden regime would have undone Trump's executive order on Thursday, January 21, 2021. But it would have prevented some anchor babies from gaining so called “birthright citizenship”.

It would be great if DeSantis would get on board with ending “birthright citizenship”. Perhaps there's hope...

Obviously, it would be better if congress would pass a law defining “Natural Born Citizen” (a child born in the country of two Citizen parents) as it would be more difficult to undo than an EO.

“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.”

Meaning not subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign.

If it were in my power I would make some new rules limiting public office to “Natural Born Citizens”. Also, no more dual nationals in any public office large or small.

Somewhere in the comments you and I have discussed this “Natural Born Citizen” thing. Instead of trying to find those comments I will summarize some of the “Natural Born Citizen” thing in a separate comment.

See ya soon...

WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)