The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the 14th Amendment. The question is whether it guarantees pregnant foreigners can give birth to U.S. citizens just because they happen to be in the country.
It is obvious that the 14th Amendment was meant to guarantee citizenship to the babies of slaves. Maybe the Court will disagree with the obvious. It is not clear to the three leftists or Chief Justice John Roberts. We’d better pray that Catholic Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t agree with the Pope, who lives in a guarded fortress. He thinks the U.S. is obliged to let everyone walk in and live off us. Then they can vote and tell us what to do.
All illegals are to be honored and treated with dignity, Pope Leo says. Dignity means letting them walk in and live off us.
We need Barrett to come our way and draw the obvious conclusion that the 14th Amendment was for the children of former slaves, not for people from around the world flooding our borders.
Courts have ruled that the 14th Amendment is for freed slaves only. And there is precedent for it.
Freed Slaves Only
The Fourteenth Amendment was a response to issues affecting freed slaves following the American Civil War.
The 1868 Amendment was intended to overrule the Supreme Court’s notorious 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, holding that a Black person whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as enslaved persons was not entitled to any protection from the federal courts because he was not a U.S. citizen.
Historically, there had been only a few exceptions to that general rule, for example, the children of hostile enemies who were occupying the country and the children of foreign diplomats, as well as (until 1924) some Native Americans.
Then, thanks to a footnote by a left-wing justice in the 1980s, it meant every pregnant woman who got into the country gave birth to a U.S. Citizen.
The Current Fight
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in arguing for an end to birthright citizenship, said the court twice acknowledged the limited purpose of the citizenship clause. First, in the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, the court “recognized that the Amendment’s ‘one pervading purpose’ was ‘the freedom of the slave race’ and ‘the security and firm establishment of that freedom.’” And just over a decade after that, the court in Elk v. Wilkins indicated that the clause’s primary purpose “was to settle ‘the citizenship of free[d] [slaves].’”
The Domicile Requirements
Lawyers argue on the basis of the Amendment’s domicile requirements. However, the law came immediately after the Civil War and obviously only meant slaves.
The leftist case is absurd, but that doesn’t mean the Chief Justice and Catholic Amy won’t go for it.
Those 700,000 dead didn’t fight to bring in millions of people from around the world on tourist visas or those running across the border while about to give birth.
The anchor baby interpretation has been devastating for this country, along with chain migration. If the case on anchor babies is lost, we’re lost.