If Donald Trump issues an executive order blocking children of illegals from being considered citizens, he would be well within the broad scope of his presidential powers under the Constitution.  He would, in fact, be enforcing the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. AND…That’s the job of the Executive in Chief—to enforce the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of our nation.

Why would this be enforcing the Constitution? Because illegal aliens, while they may be subject to our legal jurisdiction by physically being inside our geographical borders, are in no way considered to be under our political jurisdiction any more than legal alien tourists are, because aliens themselves aren’t citizens. Their home country still rules them.

Clause 2 of the 14th Amendment states clearly that only those children of people under the jurisdiction of the United States can be citizens. Jurisdiction in this usage means “not subject to any superseding foreign government rule”. The two exceptions to birthright citizenship were for American-born persons “subject to any foreign power” and for “Indians not taxed.”

If Mexico drafted all of its citizens into the army, wouldn’t all illegal Mexicans of military age in America be forced to go serve, and be subject to extradition to Mexico if they didn’t? Of course they would! Are they “subject to any foreign power”? Of course they are if they can be conscripted by a foreign military.

Would American citizens of Mexican descent be forced to go serve in the Mexican Army? Of course they would not! Why? Because they are “not subject to any foreign power”.

That’s political jurisdiction in a nutshell—it is not being subject to any foreign power.

Anyone who thinks that exclusive political jurisdiction and legal jurisdiction are the same thing just failed International Law 101.  Or they have an agenda that plays fast and loose with truth

Exclusive political jurisdiction is a legal term of art, and a well-settled matter of international law and diplomacy that goes all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta.

It is definitively NOT the same thing as merely being inside our geographical borders and being subject to various federal, state and local laws (ironically, since they are illegally here, breaking those same laws).

Such geographical location constitutes legal, not political jurisdiction. Not the same thing. Not even close.

Even if subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States, an alien here can still also be subject to a foreign power, by virtue of the allegiance and fealty he owes that foreign power as its citizen.

For example, Bupendra, an Indian citizen here on a H-1B visa can be arrested here in his place of residence for drunk driving, but he nevertheless still owes fealty to India, his place of nationality and issuer of his passport.

A good test of nationality and right to citizenship is what passport a person holds. Under the intent of the 14th Amendment, that same passport determines the nationality and citizenship of any children born to that person while here in the USA.

If a Canadian man and woman illegally and forcibly break into your barn, have a baby in your hayloft without your consent or knowledge, and refuse to leave, setting aside any sentiments of charity you may harbor, does that kid and his family automatically become a financial and legal dependent under full responsibility of you and your family?

What if they killed a few of your prized chickens for dinner, stole some potatoes to make a nice poutine or drank all the milk you needed for your children?

Should you be expected to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, medicate, and employ that Canadian family, at the expense of depriving your own children of some or all of their birthright?

Do you claim them as yours…or load your shotgun, corner them in the barn and call the cops?

That’s exactly the dilemma birthright citizenship forces upon the American taxpayer and on the birthright of our posterity.

Infringement on natural birthright is an infringement on natural rights and a serious violation of our rule of law.

Wasn’t Cain banished forever from The Garden of Eden for that very injustice?  Therein lies an important moral guideline to keep in mind.

2 replies »

  1. Great article. I have to add, Cain wasn’t banished from the Garden of Eden, because he was never in it. Adam and Eve were the first people, Man and Woman, and directly created by God, not born, everyone else is born as a human being. Cain and Abel were the first two sons of Adam and Eve. Abel was good, and worked hard, and was clever, industrious, popular, and made handsome sacrifices to God. Cain was lazy, resentful, narcissistic, and jealous of Abel. So he murdered him, and hid his body. When God confronted Cain with his deed, and prophesied that all that came of him would be marked with his mark, and that Cain himself was to be outcast from all human society, Cain replied that his punishment was more than he could bear. All he needed to do was repent of his wickedness, but he didn’t, and so the moral tale is set, for all those with the wit to see.


    • settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

      English Standard Version
      Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. This passage and others in the Bible imply that Adam and Eve remained in Eden, but not so close to God.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s