Babies do NOT provide anchors for citizenship

by | April 20, 2017 7:25 am

Language of Liberty – By Publius Huldah

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says: “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…”

The purpose of this Section was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from southern Black Codes, which denied them basic God-given rights.

This Section does not provide that illegal aliens who invade our Country and drop a baby here are automatically the parents of a U.S. citizen.

The important key phrase in the 14th Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Consider the French ambassador and his lovely young wife stationed in Washington, DC. She gives birth to a child here in the U.S., but is her child “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? No, of course not! The child is subject to the same jurisdiction as the parents: France.

Consider the American Indians: Sec.1 of the 14th Amendment did NOT confer citizenship on American Indians. They were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. They were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribes.

An illegal alien who invades our Country is in the same status as the French Ambassador’s wife. The baby she drops here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Country she left.

So the 14th Amendment does NOT confer citizenship on babies of illegals born here – just as it does not confer citizenship on the babies of foreign diplomats stationed here.

Pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may make laws deciding how people become naturalized citizens.

But Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship status on babies born here of illegal aliens.

This is important.

This is how our Supreme Court perverted the “equal protection” clause of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

  1. Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Debates, that the purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic God given Rights.
  2. The “equal protection” clause within Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

No State shall “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In chapter 10 of his book, Professor Berger shows the true meaning of the “equal protection” clause: the “equal protection” was limited to the rights enumerated in The Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America …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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This 1866 Act thus secured to blacks the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property. “Political rights” were excluded. (Remember, the 14th Amendment did not give freed slaves the right to vote). But respecting the rights listed in the Act, States were now required to treat blacks the same as whites. THAT is what the “equal protection” clause in the 14th Amendment means.

  1. So, the “equal protection” clause is not a carte blanche invitation for federal judges to thereafter prohibit States from making any “distinctions” or “classifications” on any subject whatsoever in any of their State Laws or State Constitutions, with which five (5) judges on the U.S. Supreme Court do not agree!

But that is what federal judges have been doing. And they have decided that, respecting marriage, “classifications” and “distinctions” based on male and female genders are unconstitutional as in violation of the equal protection clause. What unadulterated RUBBISH emanates from the fetid recesses of the minds of the federal judges in this country!

Will these judges next say that State Statutes, which prohibit close relatives from marrying, make “distinctions” and “classifications” which violate the equal protection clause?

  1. To my fellow Citizen, I say: Use your head. God gave you a brain – use it!
  2. To my fellow lawyers, I say: Watch The Matrix, Part I. Pay close attention to the passage where Morpheus offers the blue pill and the red pill to Neo. Morpheus later says, “I am trying to free your mind, but I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through.” Note the descriptions of the Matrix thereafter and of the people who are still plugged in.

What you have been told, beginning with your first year in law school, is a lie. Lawyers who accept the lies are plugged in to the Matrix. The red pill signifies opening your eyes. I offer you the red pill. Now open your eyes.

Publius Huldah is an author, speaker, lawyer and strict constructionist of The U.S. Constitution. Read more at publiushuldah.com

comments » 2

  1. Comment by Tom

    April 20, 2017 at 8:32 am

    Don’t worry. Trump is going to fix the SCOTUS; he’s already started. No more making laws on the fly from the bench. The Dems will surely think they are in hell, because there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

  2. Comment by Wow.

    April 21, 2017 at 7:56 am

    This has to be the most bigoted, ignorant thing I’ve ever read.
    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is specifying the states. The constitutions framers were adamant on states rights over federal.


To combat spam, please answer this question: * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

By submitting a comment you grant Sparta Live a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate and irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin’s discretion. Your email is used for verification purposes only, it will never be shared.

© Copyright 2017 | Sparta Live