By Selwyn Duke
Imagine the following scenario: A pregnant woman goes into labor while passing your property and, in distress, stumbles onto your lawn. You take notice, offer aid, and EMT arrives and, with time short, she gives birth on the scene. Mother and baby turn out safe and healthy, though, and all’s well that ends well, right? Except for one thing.
You’re then told that because the infant was born on your land, he’s now a member of your household.
Ridiculous, I know. But, of course, this is analogous to the situation in the United States under our “birthright citizenship” standard, supposedly based on the 14th Amendment.
This issue has received much attention recently because President Donald Trump issued an executive order challenging birthright citizenship. The response has been predictable, too, with mainstream media pooh-poohing Trump’s position. They apparently endorse the status quo in which an illegal alien — or a calculating pregnant tourist traveling to our nation right before her due date — will give birth on our soil, and “voila!” The joke is on us: The child is a U.S. citizen.
But did the 14th Amendment’s framers really intend this outcome? It turns out they didn’t. What’s more, the Supreme Court already ruled on the matter — 127 years ago. Unfortunately, this “precedent” has been ignored.
Recent Comments