No, The 14th Amendment Does Not Support Birthright Citizenship For Foreigners
So-called “anchor-babies” are NOT U.S. citizens. Neither the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment grants or supports the granting of "birthright citizenship" to illegals or foreigners. There is NO such thing as “birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens on U.S. soil.
Don't just take *my* word for it; take it directly from the AUTHOR of the 14th Amendment's first clause, Senator Jacob Howard, who, in 1866 fully described the intent, focus, and limits of the first clause while addressing and introducing it to the 39th Congress for ratification:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” — Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
So, ... did you catch it?
“This will NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States”
AND...
“It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are NOT citizens of the United States.”
Just in case anyone thinks that the quote has been “selectively edited” or was never made, here is the official record of the 39th U.S. Congress from the U.S. Library of Congress, itself, and open to the exact page that contains the quote (p 2890/center column):
And, here's a convenient screenshot of it in The Congressional Globe on May 30th, 1866:
And, there you have it ... straight from the horse's mouth! Documented and undeniable PROOF that neither the US Constitution nor the 14th Amendment provides "birthright citizenship" to neither ALIENS (illegals) nor foreigners born inside our borders are NOT U.S. citizens. Period!
Citizenship is granted only by the consent of that government or nation itself. You have no right to simply march uninvited into any country you want and claim Citizenship for either yourself or for anyone else. Nations are sovereign entities, and such an act would clearly be an invasion.
Think of it this way; If some stranger were to illegally sneak into your house and just have a baby, would you be obligated to accept that baby as a full member of your household with all benefits and rights thereof? Of course, you wouldn't. Not without your consent, and it would clearly not be reasonable of anyone to expect that you would or should give your consent. And, the same goes for “anchor babies.”
As for the Left's favorite argument, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark; Wong Kim Ark was an exception, NOT a rule. The Supreme Court's decision in 'United States v. Wong Kim Ark' involved the narrow definition THAT; even though Wong Kim Ark's parents were not U.S. citizens, they WERE both lawfully permanent residents of the United States at the time of Wong Kim Ark's birth in San Francisco, and that they would have normally been eligible, but were unfairly denied Naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and as such, were still fully subject to our Laws and jurisdiction. This satisfied the "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requirement in the 14th Amendment, in the way that being here ILLEGALLY cannot. Other foreigners in the United States, and especially those who are here ILLEGALLY, simply do NOT meet this requirement. The case was about LEGAL residents, not illegal immigrants or birth tourists.
The whole purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect the Rights of newly freed slaves and end the (often deadly) persecution they were facing from Southern Democrats and former slave-owners. It was NEVER meant to be applied to foreigners, and AGAIN, that is reflected in the inclusion of the words "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,".
And, for these reasons. President Trump has vowed to end the false and unconstitutional policy of "birthright citizenship":
Lastly, here's some more on the matter, proving that “birthright citizenship” for foreigners is NOT supported or granted by the Constitution:
* Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those “‘not owing allegiance to anybody else' It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”
* The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.’ ‘Not subject to any foreign power.”
* Constitutional expert, Professor Edward Erler ;