Why "Birthright Citizenship" Is Unconstitutional And Part Of The Plan To Destroy America

President Trump says he will get rid of birthright citizenship on day one when actually, it is an erroneous misinterpretation and never really existed in the first place.

When 20 million uninvited people cross your border, that's not immigration, that's an invasion of world historic proportion!

(Marco Ugarte / Associated Press)

Uncontrolled invasion, not immigration, is one of the main reasons Donald Trump was elected President. Let’s dispel the falsehoods that immigration is in the Constitution, that immigrants have a right to come here and non citizens have Constitutional rights even if they are not physically in America, etc.

Let's start with the beginning. "We the People of the United States,.........do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It cannot be any clearer who it pertains to!

Nowhere in the entire Constitution is the word immigration mentioned!  The Constitution gives the Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The idea that a foreigner can become equal to an American citizen comes directly from America's founding political principles. Individuals have a natural right to emigrate from their homeland, but they may only immigrate to this country with the consent of the American people as expressed in Article I, §8, cl. 4 of the Constitution through U.S. laws that were created by Congress for this purpose.

The Founder's thoughts on citizenship and naturalization are actually very clear

Emmerich de Vattel, born 1714, died 1767, was the author of The Law of Nations in 1758.

Vattel’s most famous work consisted of the application of the law of nature to nations. He understood the law of nature as accessible by human reason, according to which both individuals and political societies are capable of understanding their rights and obligations. Introduced into the American colonies in the 1760s, Vattel’s teachings about international law and sovereignty were not only carefully studied by American statesmen but applied by them in the international arena.

Our Founders were inspired by many enlightened authors. Building on the ideas of John Locke, Vattel, and George Mason who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Jefferson primarily authored the Declaration of Independence, THE seminal statement on human rights, in just 17 days! Furthermore, it can be argued that the first, second, and fifth paragraphs of the Declaration can be shown to be inspired by Vattel’s writing and Vattel's take on Locke's writings. Madison is credited as the father of the Constitution. Baron de Montesquieu in his “Spirit of the Laws," created the idea of three equal branches of government. Madison built on the concept of a government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches.

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…

Therefore, when debating the Constitution, Vattel's book was familiar to the Founders.

Fun fact: It was discovered centuries after his death, George Washington had some overdue library books. One of them was The Law of Nations.

Key insights from Vattel's writing: (emphasis mine)

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213:  Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization.  In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law.  And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

This totally contradicts the ludicrous principle of jus soli, or right of soil, which actually came from the days of kings. Every rock, tree, turnip grown in a field, and you, belong to the king, because he claims ownership of everything in his kingdom! Vattel, and our Founders believed you, as your God given right as a human being, were not property of a king. Therefore, your children are citizens of whatever country you were born in.

Why the requirement in the Constitution that the President be a “natural born”, not “naturalized”, citizen of the United States?

President is the only office in the Constitution with the requirement of being a "natural born" as opposed to a "naturalized" citizen.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Why did the Founders insist on this?

The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12

Justice Joseph Story's “Commentaries on the Constitution” was published in 1833. He further explained the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was to “cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”

Which raises questions in the most recent Presidential election

Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswami's parents were immigrants from India who had every intention of becoming American citizens. They were in the process of waiting the required five years before they could apply to become naturalized American citizens, with both Nikki and Vivek being born in that time in between. Once their respective parents became naturalized citizens, they as minor children became naturalized American citizens also. But they are absolutely not natural born American citizens and were not qualified to run for President.

As for Kamala Harris...

Her parents were immigrant students at the time of her birth. They divorced, and despite her "middle class" BS, she actually grew up in an UPPER-CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD in Montreal, Canada.

Ms. Harris’s father, Donald J. Harris, a Jamaican, arrived in the United States in 1961 to attend the University of California at Berkeley. At some time prior to May 2015, Harris became a naturalized U.S. citizen,” citing three external sources.

Ms. Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born in the Madres province of India. She, too, came to the United States and obtained a PhD in medical and oncology research in 1964. There is no evidence she became a U.S. citizen. She died in 2009. Did Kamala even apply for American citizenship once she turned 18? Definitely NEVER qualified to run for President!

The Naturalization Act of 1790, establishing how foreigners became citizens

 SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.   And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States … APPROVED, March 26, 1790. (emphasis mine)

The Immigration and Naturalization Act has been updated, but still contains the 14th Amendment key phrase and terms of citizenship:

Mirroring the writing of Vattel, the agreement of the Founders on the subject, and the key phrase from the 14th Amendment:

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

The poor 14th Amendment

The poor 14th Amendment has somehow become the whipping boy when someone wants to commit something unconstitutional. The most recent, that Donald Trump could never again hold public office since he committed "insurrection" against the United States, with scheming public officials taking him off their state's ballots for President. First, he was never convicted in a court of law of insurrection. Second, the 14th Amendment clearly does not refer to the President or Vice President, ONLY ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. Also, they are not officers. Possibly the most egregious and abominable abuse of the 14th Amendment was how it was twisted to accomplish the infamous and diabolical Roe v Wade ruling. A right to privacy was unconstitutionally inserted, while overlooking all citizens have equal rights under the law, including the unborn.

Then we get to our "birthright citizenship" and "anchor baby" deceptions. The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to right the wrong of the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling, that blacks had no Constitutional rights in America. PERIOD! It says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. This phrase in the 14th Amendment’s came from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." This phrase destroys the "anchor baby" myth, that because you happen to have been born in the United States you are automatically a citizen. To be "subject to the jurisdiction", you must have political allegiance to the United States and agreed to following its laws! Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” – they are invaders who violated 8 U.S.C. § 1325 - U.S. Code - Improper entry by alien, whose allegiance is to the country they left. There are thousands of foreign diplomats in this country. Can you with a straight face say if they have children, they are American Citizens? A foreign citizen of another country visiting here for vacation would be the same, which makes ridiculous the practice of Chinese women coming here to have babies so they can be American citizens. How fair is that to people who follow the rules, wait years and spend thousands of dollars to come to our country? The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners." And despite leftists unconstitutionally making it up as they went along, Congress has established very clear laws on immigration and penalties for violating them. Should we just start to ignore speed limit laws, rob banks, etc? If you can choose to disregard some laws, what about the rest?

Court cases regarding "birthright citizenship"

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that the qualifying phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was reiterated in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

Fun fact: American Indians and their children did not become American citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. If it is as erroneously argued that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to every person who happens to be born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are, what would have been the point of the Indian Citizenship Act?

But, but, but, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898

"Birthright citizenship" defenders use the 1898 case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as proof. The Supreme Court did overstep. However, there were extenuating circumstances. Wong Kim Ark was a lawful permanent resident not being allowed to re enter the U.S. because of a ban on Chinese immigrants at the time. The court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. Not even close to saying that a child born to people who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen. There are even later court cases that I won't dignify by mentioning which ridiculously argue that this case is proof children born of illegals are "natural born citizens."

Countries in the world recognizing “birthright citizenship”

See anything fishy here? 🤔

It's time to turn this ship around!

We've been on this course of destroying America for a long time now. Just like it takes a massive container ship miles to change direction, undoing the fiction of “birthright citizenship” is only the start.