I wish Trump were right about birthright
citizenship, but he’s probably not

Glenn Beaton is not always right.

Sadly, thats the way I read it too. Unless "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something other than what it appears to mean, we are stuck with an unreasonable law. And if we allow the language to be changed on a whim we have to let them do it with a "well regulated militia" too.

Illegals are criminals. Even pregnant women who cross the border illegally. They and their babies are subjects of their home countries. Our laws can send them back.

Glenn's analysis seems to be a bit shallow. Here’s another take from the NYT of all places. https://archive.is/oELZQ

So.....Let's designate those illegal alien women who give birth in the USA "diplomats."

When this law was written it was made amply clear that it's focus was slaves who had just been emancipated. There is plenty of contemporary literature , comments to verify. Additionally it was made clear that it does not apply to people who are here temporarily. Such as children born to foreign diplomats , students etc. The parents MUST owe allegiance solely to the United States (for example green card holders). Illegal aliens clearly do not qualify. It is time the SCOTUS takes this up and clarifies the issue once and for all...

It depends on how the clause in the 14th Amendment about being subject to the jurisdiction of the USA is finally defined, probably by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were to define that clause as including and meaning the babies of aliens who have been admitted for permanent residence (green card holders). Such a definition would limit birthright citizenship, by not including the babies of illegal aliens, and aliens who come into the USA temporarily to have a baby born in the USA to attain US birthright citizenship for the baby, who then depart back to their home country, with the US born baby then not returning to their USA until after he or she attains adulthood. Since such babies are actually considered to be duel citizens or nationals, once they become an adult they then could claim US citizenship and gain entry back into the USA, without the USA having a clue if that person actually holds allegiance to the USA or to the foreign country where they grew up, like Communist China.

A fundamental rule of legal interpretation is that every phrase must be given meaning. Thus the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase must be given meaning. If all it means is “subject to the jurisdiction people physically present in the country are subject to,” it is meaningless since you cannot be born here without being physically present here. Of course if I go to France i am subject to traffic laws etc there. I think even a diplomat is subject to our laws but may have certain diplomatic immunities. They can’t walk down the street shooting with impunity. We’ll see what the Supreme Court says.

3 nailed it. Sorry Glenn.

A senator from Michigan who wrote the 14th Amendment went on the floor of the Senate and proclaimed that it wouldn't grant citizenship to the children of foreign nationals. Why is there even a debate about this subject?

A professor of constitutional law thinks differently. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/opinion/trump-birthright-citizenship.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xE4.4GlF.ViuU9tpdQXvm&smid=url-share

While I agree with Trump's concept and motivation, this is not one an EO can cover, this will have to be dealt with in Congress.

Does this then mean they are subject to US income taxes even if they go back to their parent's country to live?

Okay, if the baby is born on the banks of the river, he/she is an American citizen. Mom is not and must return to her own country. We'll see how that works out.

Two law school professors (Georgetown, Randy E. Barnett and University of Minnesota, Ilan Wurman) “...argued in a guest opinion essay that President Donald Trump may hold a powerful legal case on the issue of birthright citizenship.” Excerpts from their essay are posted below (capitalization emphasis added). Reference: “NYT opinion piece concedes 'Trump might have a case on birthright citizenship'” ~ [Jeffrey Clark - February 15, 2025 - Fox News] ~~~ The text of the 14th Amendment 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.” The professors “...tackled THE ISSUE OF CHILDREN OF PARENTS WHO ARE "PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY” as follows: "Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here PLEDGED OBEDIENCE to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?" Clearly, the parents who are not enemies in the sense of an invading army, but did not come in amity,...gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered--one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws." "Such persons can even be summarily removed from the country without judicial procedures of the sort that would protect citizens," ... "If the allegiance-for-protection view informed the original meaning of the text, then they and their children are therefore not under the protection or 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the nation in the relevant sense." “...the executive order's "exclusion of children born to mothers who are 'lawful but temporary' residents is a more complicated question not addressed here." "...whether Congress ought to grant naturalized citizenship to children born to those ILLEGALLY present in the United States IS A POLICY ISSUE DISTINCT FROM WHETHER THE 14TH AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY DONE SO," ... "The Supreme Court has, IN A FOOTNOTE, PRESUMED THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S JURISDICTIONAL PHRASE APPLIED EQUALLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY, but the issue was neither briefed nor argued in that case; nor was it material to its outcome." ~~~

Because some blowhard writes an article for a tiny, meaningless 'newspaper' does not give it any more weight that what I am writing. It is his uninformed, pretty ignorant, opinion. SUBJECT TO is the over-riding part. They are ILLEGALS, they have NO US citizen rights. We DON'T have to read them Miranda warnings, we DON'T have to grant them citizenship. They get NOTHING. Unless some rat and RINO traitors think it is something that benefits them, then THEY give away something brave, actual Americans died trying to protect. Make no mistake, this is a life or death issue.

even naturalised citizens can be stripped of that status for various reasons. being born on u.s. dirt isn't enough. parents who are cartel members and ccp ruffians are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof...imho.

I'm glad Beaton is wrong about Birthright Citizenship. But it is no surprise that he is. I doubt that more than 5% of current Americans (including, maybe especially, judges and lawyers) actually understand the 'Founding Fathers' intent, or the intent of the courts and legislation on the topic between 1789 and 1870. Either the vast majority just plain don't understand it, or they do, but have a vested interest in keeping the incorrect status quo going.

Glenn Beaton is probably wrong about birthright.

This issue can only be settled once and for all by a Constitutional amendment. We know that the SCOTUS changes its mind over time. In Plessy they ruled segregation was constitutional. The Brown case reversed Plessy. The Dobbs decision reversed Roe. Congress passed Constitutional amendments to correct the Dredd Scott decision.

I have to disagree with Mr. Beaton.