(VIDEO)(LINK)(PDF) Jewish Zionism: Who is Really Behind Illegal Immigration, Replacement Migration?
Explaining the 14th Amendment TEXT
Let me finish, because you incorrectly described the 14th Amendment. I agree with the three dissenters, and here is why. When you look at the text of the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship, which I have right here in my hand, it says that in order to be a citizen you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If you are a woman from China who comes over, you are subject to the jurisdiction of China. That’s pretty clearly written in the text of the 14th Amendment about birthright citizenship. I’m a textualist, though. You go on and it says that you are “subject to the state wherein you reside”. If you are a woman from China who comes over to give birth in this country, you are not residing in a state, you are a visitor. It is very clear, the text on the page, which is why Thomas got this right, it’s why Leto got this right, it’s why Gorsuch got this right.
Using Logic to Understand Birthright Citizenship and Birth Tourism
That’s why they were in a minority. This is a hugely important decision, because it only takes a few brain cells to answer this question. Do you think the founders, or the framers, I should say, of the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship intended for 4.13 billion women in the world to have the right to come over here, give birth, and become a citizen? Did they envision 4.13 billion new citizens potentially in a theoretical world? No, but that is essentially what the majority is saying today about birthright citizenship. It is totally ludicrous. That would include children from hostile nations. Do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted people from China or Russia? We’ve learned Russia is sending people over here to have babies, to become U.S. citizens, and then go back and be educated in the CCP. Do we need 1 to 1.5 million new voters educated by the Chinese Communist Party? I think not, but that is the estimate of birth tourism from China alone.
SCOTUS John Sower Pointed Out in his Oral Arguments Intent of the 14th Amendment
This was a wrong decision. It was a very bad one, and Justice Thomas very clearly described this. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to overturn Dred Scott. It was intended to bring citizenship to freed slaves. It was never intended to apply to foreigners traveling to the United States of America. It’s a wrong decision. It’s a bad one. It won’t stand the test of time.
Last Point on Supreme Court Decision
Senator Rick Scott, who I’m growing to like more and more each and every day, said next week the Senate needs to vote on this. They need to codify the Trump agenda on the border. They need to make legislative changes here to ensure that birth tourism abuse of the 14th Amendment ends. This has to change. It needs to change next week. The lazy Senate that can’t get around to voting on the Save America Act, no more excuses. Fix this before the midterm election.
Government National Archives – Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
LAST PARAGRAPH
The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States.
