Trump is correct in wanting to end birthright citizenship

January 28, 2025

Among the many Executive Orders President Donald Trump has signed is one aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." That is the aspect of the U.S. Constitution that has enabled children born to illegal aliens or those on temporary visas while they are in the U.S. to become citizens, although their parents are not citizens.

Birthright citizenship is also known as the legal principle of unrestricted — or “pure” — jus soli, or the "right of the soil." 

Trump’s effort to end this element has stirred quite a lot of opposition. At least 22 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia have filed suit in opposition.

During the signing of the Executive Order, Trump said, incorrectly, that the United States is “the only country in the world that does this.” However, some 30 countries allow automatic jus soli, and most do not have any restrictions to it. However, while Trump’s assertion wasn’t correct, it is true that this concept is losing its appeal in these countries.

The part of the U.S. Constitution that enables this is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “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.” 

Trump's order seeks to change the rules to deny the granting of citizenship to these children in the future. It does not apply retroactively.

However, although the Amendment’s language does not specifically say it, there was a specific and limited intent for creating the Amendment that has been disregarded for a long time.

Britannica online explains that the Fourteenth Amendment, approved in 1868, “granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

To the need for the Amendment, National Immigration Forum adds: “In the aftermath [of the Civil War], Congress was eager to ensure that newly emancipated blacks not be deprived of their rights in states previously part of the Confederacy as well as to guarantee that African Americans were entitled to citizenship regardless of where they resided, overturning the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.”

However, for the last hundred or so years, the original intent of the Amendment has been unheeded, and it has been allowed to apply to virtually anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the circumstances of why the parent or parents were in the country.

Consequently, today, and for many years, pregnant women have come to the U.S. and given birth to their babies, and the babies have been granted citizenship. 

Whereas the original intent of the Amendment made perfect sense and was the right thing to do, the more liberal interpretation of it has allowed any child born here regardless of who the parent is. The parents could be good people or bad people, but that doesn’t matter. And because their child is a citizen, special circumstances exist for them.

Giving a baby citizenship in the U.S. simply because its mother happened to be here when it was born makes no sense, and is not something that we should allow any longer. And as the Amendment is now understood, and has been for some time, it is an advertisement for illegal entry into the country.

From Wikipedia: “The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2016, approximately 6 percent of all births in the U.S. (about 250,000 out of 4 million births per year) were to unauthorized immigrants, and a population of 5 million children under 18 with at least one unauthorized parent were living in the United States. In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute estimated numbers at 4.1 million children.”

Straightening this out could be a difficult task, some say. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, and that is very difficult and takes a long time. It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress to approve an amendment to initiate the change, and it must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 of the 50.

But the simple solution is to consider why the Amendment was created in the first place, and allow that original intent to once again be the correct interpretation.

And in doing so, seriously consider the importance of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is interpreted to mean that the non-citizen must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country. Given that the non-citizen parent(s) entered the U.S. illegally, it would seem their allegiance would be to the country from which the non-citizen parent(s) came, rather than to the U.S., where they have broken the law when they entered.

The original idea was not to allow every, or any, child born in the country to be ruled a citizen, but to award citizenship to African Americans, slaves and their children. Otherwise, to become a citizen here, everyone desiring citizenship must follow the existing process. 

To reiterate, Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, should it be approved, will not be applied to those who have already come in, but to those in the future.

The “New Way Forward Act” is more like the “New Way Backward Act”

Forty-four members of our House of Representatives have come out in support of a bill — H.R.5383 — that has received precious little attention from our national news media. After you learn what is in this piece of legislation and what it will do, you are likely to wonder why such sweeping legislation would not at least peek through the coronavirus mania that now receives almost as much attention as Donald Trump’s latest imagined booboo.

The New Way Forward Act, in the words of its primary sponsor, Democrat Illinois Rep. Jesús García, simply asks for a “fair shot at the opportunity for immigrants to stay in the country they call home.”

That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Finding a way for those immigrants who love America and want to come here, become true Americans and contribute to making us an even better nation — who could possibly object to that, other than those who are racists and xenophobes?

Why, then, would such a humanitarian-oriented bill escape the notice of the mainstream news media?

Then, on the other hand, when the immigrants in question are frequently or mostly illegal aliens, who have broken the law to come here, and more than a few have committed other crimes before and/or after coming here, maybe this law isn’t such a great idea.

Matthew Tragesser, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), had this to say about it: “The New Way Forward Act is arguably the most radical piece of immigration legislation in American history.”

Some of the features of the New Way Forward Act are:

* It will assist foreign born criminals to live here

* It will allow people who have committed serious felonies in other countries to move to the United States

* It will make it much more difficult for federal immigration officials to detain potentially dangerous immigrants

* It will transport deported criminals back into the United States at our expense

* It will give free health care to illegal immigrants

* It will abolish ICE

This measure needs to be ripped up and tossed in the trash, ala Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address.

In its place must be measures to secure borders and ports of entry, and punish those who flaunt our immigration laws. The following should be done:

* Stronger measures to prevent illegal entry into the country

* Charging illegals who illegally re-enter the country with a crime and jailing them, not deporting them

* Illegals who have committed crimes in other countries and/or in the U.S. should be jailed, not deported, so they cannot once again try to re-enter the country

* Confinement for breaking immigration laws should be neither inhumane nor pleasant. It should be a deterrent against entering the country illegally, and a measure that costs tax payers as little as possible

In a “nation of laws, not men,” as the United States is, and as a nation where citizenship is a valued asset that can be earned by those from other countries, the provisions of the New Way Forward Act are poisonous. They are precisely opposite to what is needed for a secure nation. They are sharply at odds with the principles our Founders set forth two and one-half centuries ago. They also are at odds with common sense.

By relaxing our immigration standards to allow whoever wants to come in, we will have no idea who is coming in. Will it be only honest, hard-working, good people who want to become Americans? Will it be lazy people who want to live off the government? Or, thugs and criminals who will commit all manner of crimes?

The answer: all of the above.

Surely the proponents of this horrible mis-named legislation are capable of understanding the dangers of this concept. Or, perhaps they just don’t care.

García and 43 other Democrat House members introduced the New Way Forward Act last December. Some of the 43 others are Oregon’s Earl Blumenauer, and the infamous “Squad” which is known for its radical ideas: Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, Massachusetts’ Ayanna Pressley, New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib.

Other House Democrats who support lax enforcement of immigration laws include Michigan’s Andy Levin, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and the Speaker of the House, California’s Nancy Pelosi.

It is interesting to watch people in Congress, some of whom live behind gates and are very careful about who comes on their property. Many of them support lax immigration policies that would allow people to enter their country that they would never allow in their homes. On the one hand, safety is the main concern. On the other, political expedience is the main concern.

Democrats more and more are trying to change America’s basic orientation. While he didn’t start this trend, former President Barack Obama certainly properly characterized it: fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

But America does not need fundamental change. Its design is so far ahead of other countries that it would be, to put it in the most graphic terms, stupid to follow the Democrat’s preferred path, and turn it into one more socialist state bound for failure.

Political differences keep intruding on badly needed reforms

This year President Donald Trump’s administration and the Republican majority in Congress identified areas of government needing reform. The tax code is huge, complicated and full of negative elements. The health insurance marketplace is collapsing, thanks to the (so-called) Affordable Care Act, under which insurers dropped out of the market and prices continue to grow beyond the ability of millions of Americans to afford them. And the nation’s border security and immigration systems are so bad as to be dangerous.

Efforts to fix the tax code and health insurance ran into political problems, and the immigration and border problem most likely will, too. But we have an opportunity for reform, and we need it.

In our sharply divided society, the political right and left have very different ideas about immigration. One side takes a dim view of controlled immigration, while the other side prefers a strong immigration system.

Generally speaking, why should America not apply the same common sense rules to immigration as its citizens do regarding whom they allow into their homes?

  ** How many of us would leave our doors and windows unlocked all the time?

  ** If one or a few people knock on our front door and say, “I really like your house, and want to live here,” how many of us would invite them in, just because they want to come in?

  ** How many of us, if we found a small group of strangers living in our garage, basement or spare bedroom would merely ask them to leave, instead of calling the police and having them arrested?

  ** How many of us would happily feed and clothe those intruders and allow them to stay without knowing whether they are violent or can be trusted?

  ** How many would allow one of their family members to hide and protect the intruders?

These situations actually exist in our immigration system today.

Most of us insist that we decide if anyone comes into our home, who we allow in and under what circumstances we allow them to come in. But somehow, many Americans don’t see the need to apply the same logical and strict standards to who enters our country.

America has porous borders that have allowed millions of people to come into the country illegally, and it has policies that make life pretty easy for illegal aliens.

But the country is under no obligation to allow immigration, and depending upon several factors, immigration may sometimes not be desirable. We frequently hear people say that immigrants built America, and that is true. But America has already been built; so that factor all by itself does not make the case for more immigration.

No one has a right to come into our country. We get to decide whether to allow immigration, or not; it is our choice. The government has the right and the duty to decide if people come in, and under what circumstances. And we need to choose those immigrants by what the country needs and desires; we do not allow immigration just because people want to come here.

We should choose to allow only those to immigrate that can contribute positively to the country, and keep out those who have little or nothing positive to contribute. We must make sure that those we permit to immigrate understand and agree to assimilate into the existing culture, and bar those who do not agree to assimilate, or who want to change our culture.

Our problems with immigration and border security are many. Despite a federal Border Patrol force determined to prevent illegal entry, the borders are insufficiently protected to accomplish that goal. Trump famously supports a “wall,” which actually means erecting and utilizing many different elements to stop illegal border crossings, not just a huge wall along the southern border.

Certain jurisdictions in the country, known as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, refuse to follow the law and alert federal officials to the presence of illegal aliens so federal authorities can deal with them. Efforts by the Trump administration to “encourage” these sanctuaries to obey the law by withholding federal funding have been thwarted by a federal judge, who ruled Trump cannot change how money approved by Congress is used. So these sanctuary jurisdictions can continue their lawless behavior with this judge’s blessing.

When illegals are caught, they are deported. However, many return and are deported again, repeatedly, and without penalty, other than deportation. Some of them commit criminal acts, often in sanctuaries.

Whether it’s called “political correctness,” or “foolishness,” the fact remains that our country is not being protected from illegal entry and the costs, pain and harm to citizens resulting from illegal entry.

The border must be secured, illegal aliens must be gotten under control, and deported, or perhaps in some cases put on a path to citizenship that includes assimilation or deportation if they do not satisfactorily assimilate, and jailing those who commit crimes.

If America is going to allow immigration, immigrants need to come here for the right reasons: to respect and honor our country and its culture; to possess desirable skills and intentions; and to become honest and productive citizens.

Nothing less is acceptable.

The DACA and DREAMERS: The Good, the bad, and the ugly

The Democrat/liberal crisis of the moment has changed. Since President Donald Trump ordered the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) suspended last week, DACA has totally blown the Russian election collusion (that was fervently hoped for, but didn’t cause Hillary Clinton’s self-destructive campaign to fail) off their rumor sheet and whisper campaign.

And Leftists have retreated to their safe and familiar habits, and are again calling names. Trump is “cruel.” So many Democrats have used that word lately that it must have been directed from party leaders. It is suspected that in response to Trump’s action the Democrat Party issued a talking point: “Say it’s cruel! Say it’s mean! Say it’s heartless! And stick to the message!”

The Left’s beloved DACA program has many failings, beyond being unconstitutional. Former President Barack Obama hated it before he loved it and issued the Executive Order. Twenty-two times he told the world that such a thing was beyond the power of a mere President, and he couldn’t do it because he wasn’t the Emperor of the U.S. Then he did what he couldn’t do, calling it a temporary stopgap measure. "This is temporary. Congress needs to act," he said.

What Is DACA? According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): “On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.”

At first glance DACA may seem like a humanitarian action, designed to give illegal aliens whose parents brought them here as children a temporarily protected, but not lawful, status if they meet “several guidelines.”

What Trump is being called all sorts of names for doing, however, is really so much less than his Leftist critics are accusing him of. He is passing the ball for this immigration matter to where it actually belongs: the Congress. That is one thing Obama actually was right about.

All Trump did was to remove an improper order, and put the matter where it belongs. Sensible people won’t criticize Trump for that. And, Congress has six months to do the appropriate thing for these illegal alien residents. And at least until then, the DACA people are as safe today as they were before Trump’s action.

But the real problem is that, like so many things in the Obama administration, despite there being laws and regulations that are unambiguous, administrative agencies frequently ignored them, and did so without penalty. And, unsurprisingly, it turns out that the DACA implementation was rife with failure and fraud.

A story by Margaret Menge detailing much of these irregularities was published on LifeZette online last week. Quoting Matt O’Brien, an attorney who until last year was a manager in the investigative unit of USCIS, “as many as half of the approximately 800,000 people who now have work permits under DACA may have lied on their applications to get approved.”

Worse, O’Brien said, “these people were almost always approved anyway, because of the attitude of managers in the field and the chief counsel’s office.” He added, “The whole way the program is set up, it just facilitated fraud, and I’m not entirely confident that wasn’t intentional.”

With six months allotted for Congress to act, some believe that there are enough potential votes to create a path to citizenship for these DACA recipients, referred to as DREAMERS, for the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. And, they can renew their two-year work permits if they were to expire before March 5, 2018.

But Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, says this would be a mistake. “USCIS never verified anything people put on their DACA applications,” she said, citing an example of how dangerous this might be. A DACA applicant named Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez was granted DACA status, despite USCIS admitting it had not checked this gang member’s application. He went on to murder four people in Charlotte, NC. The government agency merely accepted his application as truthful and accurate, never checking any of it.

She said that under George W. Bush, applications were thoroughly checked. “It’s the type of due diligence that the private sector does routinely,” she said.

O’Brien confirmed the failure of the application process, saying, “I personally witnessed an alarming number of people who had gang affiliations applying for this program,” most of whom, he said, were approved.

Menge’s article concludes by noting that the “approval rate for DACA in the two most recent quarters of fiscal year 2017 was approximately 97 percent, with only 3 percent of applications denied.”

Contrary to the idea that DACA is a humanitarian effort to help children of illegal aliens brought here by their parents, it is just another avenue the Left uses to allow anyone into the country, with no regard for their potential to harm American citizens.

Illegal border crossings are down, but immigration issues remain

 

Immigration is the movement of people into a destination country of which they are not natives, or where they do not possess citizenship, in order to settle or reside there, especially as permanent residents or naturalized citizens.

Immigrating to the US is not a right; it is a privilege.

Most folks do not leave their home open to anyone with the desire to enter and live in them. They want to be sure that those they allow into their home do not want to harm them, or damage or steal their belongings.

Likewise, we must not leave the national borders open so that just anyone can come in. We have to make a determined effort to be sure that those who are allowed to legally enter America share our values, or agree to adopt them. They need to get a job and support themselves and their families, and to become true Americans.

The sloppy enforcement of our immigration laws and philosophy in recent years has produced a body of illegal aliens totaling around 11 million, according to some reports. The term “undocumented immigrants” is not appropriate for these people: Immigrants enter the country legally; these people entered the country illegally, or came in legally and over-stayed their visas.

As a result, the good people who come here for the best reasons, but are not here legally, have been overshadowed by the wicked deeds the many bad ones have committed. It’s time for that to change.

Seeing this problem clearly, unlike the previous resident of the White House, President Donald Trump campaigned on tougher enforcement of our borders and other measures to reduce or eliminate illegal entry into the U.S.

Since Trump was sworn in, good things have already started happening relative to illegal border crossings.

As reported in the Washington Examiner, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Thomas D. Homan, said that since Trump entered office, “illegal border crossings have crashed by almost 70 percent, ‘an historic low,’ arrests inside the country have jumped 40 percent and that demands for illegal criminals in local jails has skyrocketed 80 percent.”

"You can like President Trump, not like him, like his policies, not like his policies, but one thing no one can argue with is the effect they've had," Homan said. He is a 30-year immigration agency veteran, and the former chief of ICE enforcement.

Echoing that sentiment, National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd said on C-SPAN that the reduction in the number of illegal border crossers between the U.S. and Mexico is “nothing short of miraculous,” putting the reduction at 53 percent of the same period last year, all before construction of Trump’s vaunted border wall has even begun.

Judd told Fox News, “There’s a vibe, there’s an energy in the Border Patrol that’s never been there before in 20 years that I’ve been in the patrol.”

Complicating the illegal alien problem is the movement by more than 300 cities and counties to protect illegals in “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Homan said that ICE will hire 10,000 new agents and crack down on these sanctuaries. “In the America I grew up in, cities didn’t shield people who violated the law,” he noted.

While denying that ICE is being pressured to meet quotas, Homan said that ICE will focus on targeting fugitives, criminals, threats to national security, and illegals who had previously been deported and came back into the United States.

In a move that runs counter to Trump’s “America First” initiative and efforts to provide jobs for Americans, the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month increased by 15,000 the number of H-2B visas for low-wage, seasonal workers for the remainder of this fiscal year on the basis that many businesses will not be able to find enough American workers this summer.

Defenders of such policies contend that Americans will not work these jobs because they are unpleasant or because they don’t pay enough; therefore foreign workers are the best solution. However, the Center for Immigration Studies found that the average hourly pay for an H-2B visa holder last year was $12.31, roughly 70 percent above the federal minimum wage.

You would think a lot of minimum wage American workers would take that increase in pay, as well as a lot of unemployed Americans who could get back into the labor force, even if temporarily. A Maine resort town, faced with a shortage of H-2B workers, solved their problem by hiring … Americans!

Our immigration problem would not have grown to its current crisis level had past administrations strictly enforced national immigration laws. As a result, millions of people are here illegally. The bad ones are now targets of government, but what do we do with those who are generally good people, except for their method of coming to America?

Some truly just want a better life and are living a generally good, clean life. What is the best way to deal with these “Dreamers?” There is a great sentiment for providing a strict and complex path to citizenship, and deporting millions of them is virtually impossible.

Perhaps a suitable compromise can be found.