By Sack Head Shaun

By now you have likely seen the post from Congresswoman Delia Ramirez declaring, “If you’re born in the US, you are a citizen. PUNTO.” She then demanded bipartisan support for her so called Born in the USA Act to block funding for President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

That statement may play well on social media. It does not reflect the actual state of the law.

This issue is unsettled for one simple reason. There is no federal statute that explicitly grants citizenship to the children of parents who are unlawfully present in the United States. None. The only language Congress has ever passed in statute mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment and uses the phrase “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That second clause is the entire legal fight.

What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled

Much of the modern media narrative relies on the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That case did establish birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to alien parents. What is almost always omitted is the legal status of those parents.

Wong Kim Ark’s parents were lawfully domiciled in the United States. They lived here permanently. They worked here legally. They were under full American jurisdiction in every legal sense available at the time. The Court repeatedly relied on that lawful residence and domestic jurisdiction in its reasoning.

The Court did not rule on children born to parents who crossed the border illegally. That question has never been directly decided by the Supreme Court. That is why the Trump executive order is now before the Court and why Congresswoman Ramirez is already trying to declare victory before the referees even step onto the field.

Being Here Is Not the Same as Belonging Here

Americans are often told that illegal aliens have a path to citizenship. That is only true after they leave the country and reenter through a lawful immigration process. Illegal presence does not create lawful status. It never has.

That matters. If being physically present on US soil alone were enough to create full political membership, then immigration law would be meaningless. We already recognize that illegal aliens receive certain limited protections in specific circumstances. Due process in criminal cases. Emergency medical care. Basic human rights afforded to all persons under our laws.

Those limited protections are not the same thing as full citizenship. Jurisdiction for criminal process or hospital treatment is not the same as political allegiance to the United States.

Even Ramirez Undercuts Her Own Argument

Adding to the irony, Congresswoman Ramirez recently stated at a press conference in Guatemala that she is a Guatemalan citizen first. That video exists. You have likely seen it. So on one hand she insists that birth on US soil alone is the ultimate political bond. On the other, she publicly proclaims her primary allegiance elsewhere.

You cannot have it both ways.

The Real Danger Behind the Slogan

The deeper issue that Congresswoman Ramirez avoids is the national security and sovereignty consequence of her position. If birth alone creates citizenship regardless of parental status, then there is effectively no constitutional limit on mass unlawful entry for the purpose of population replacement through birth.

The Biden administration has already permitted more than ten million illegal crossings. If even a fraction of that population remains and reproduces under a guaranteed citizenship rule, you permanently alter the nation without a single lawful act of Congress. That is not compassion. That is demographic engineering by default.

No serious nation on Earth treats citizenship that way.

That Is Why the Supreme Court Is Taking This Case

The Supreme Court agreed to hear this challenge precisely because the law is not settled. The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has never been squarely applied to unlawful entry in a modern context. That unresolved ambiguity is exactly what President Trump’s executive order places before the justices.

What makes this whole stunt even more telling is that Congresswoman Ramirez clearly knows the history and the absence of any statute or precedent that supports her claim. That’s why she’s lobbying to defund the executive order instead of pointing to settled law. If her position were rock-solid, she wouldn’t need to push a new law. And make no mistake — that law, if passed, would set a precedent that could be used in future immigration cases, not just this one.

Congresswoman Ramirez may shout “PUNTO” all she wants. The Constitution will deliver the final punctuation.

By Sack Head Shaun
Host of The Edge of Liberty
Airs Monday and Wednesday at 8 PM PST
SHR Media Network and KLRN Radio

Editorial Disclaimer:
This article reflects the personal views and opinions of its author. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official positions, beliefs or editorial stance of the SHR Media organization.

About the Author

Sack Head Shaun

Administrator

Want to Help Support? Visit Website View All Posts