Brilliant article and cursory research from unbiased sources makes a very compelling case that babies born of illegal alien parentage are NOT citizens at birth and the 14th amendment does not confer jus soli upon all illegal alien babies. The Wong Kim Ark case only conferred birthright citizenship upon babies of parents who are legal permanent residents. When the 14th amendment was ratified American Indians born on U.S. soil did not qualify for citizenship but somehow illegal aliens do? American Indians did not receive citizenship until it was specifically granted to them by Congress in 1924.
It's sad that America has taken such a far left wing turn that this issue is so controversial. I also have little faith in the Supreme Kangaroo Court of the United States to deliver a common sense and pro-American ruling which would be to deny birthright citizenship to all anchor babies. Most of the time when the high court feels political pressure it seems that they rule on the side of the radical left wing (Obamacare, gay marriage, etc.). They probably don't want to upset all of the leftists at their Beltway cocktail parties.
Like a brilliant detective, Ann nails it! Spots a common modus operandi, calls it out and then calls out how the left then rinses and repeats the dubious character assassination in an effort to dispute it incorrectly. Then spread the lie because some legacy MSM propaganda tool must be right, correct? Nah!
Nice read, Ann, as usual. I first sat down with Eastman at Chapman University back in 2008 or thereabouts to interview him about the issue of birthright citizenship, public policy and the 14th Amendment. As a recognized scholar on constitutional law, Eastman's viewpoint on the issue seemed not only well within the recognized perimeters of legitimate debate (his was not a flat earth perspective, legally speaking) but anchored in established historical fact and thoughtfully advanced by a reasonable assessment of the case law cited as precedent. I met with him several times to discuss the disaster of birthright citizenship and also Edward Erler at CSU San Bernardino, who The Times also named in their story. In 2009, my essay American Jackpot: The Remaking of America Through Birthright Citizenship was published by Californians for Population Stabilization. Both Eastman and Erler are thoughtful scholars whose analysis on the issue was hardly fringe—back then or now—but rather they offered an unflinching assessment of the dubious legal standing underpinning the disastrous policy of birthright citizenship. The NYT sold off its credibility on the issue of mass migration (among others) long ago.
I love the first sentence- about "the world of the court, including its role in politics and the lives of the justices..." like it is a soap opera! So many are brainwashed already on birthright citizenship and there is so little courage that I fear the best we are going to do is a Thomas/Alito dissent. We'll be lucky if the court shoots down the case because it is an executive order and says that Congress must pass legislation on the issue of citizenship. My fear and what I expect is a 5-4 (or worse, maybe 7-2 with concurrences in part etc.) saying essentially that Congress' failure to act for however long enshrined the notion of birthright citizenship as a Constitutional right. "After all, what do we do about the millions of anchor babies who are already treated as citizens, and in many cases, already reached adulthood?" Of course, a law could be prospective in dealing with this, but the majority will be too lazy.
Anyway, I hope I am wrong. Either way, this should have been dealt with 30 or more years ago. The same goes for English as the official language.
That's a valid fear and concern and the high court isn't above mealy mouthed doublespeak in their rulings since they seem to wish to placate both sides so as not to appear partisan. The Congress is too lazy to settle this and most GOP representatives fear their major donors who support illegal aliens and the massive labor oversupply it brings since it drives down wages and benefits.
I’m no law professor, federal judge or lawyer. However it does not take a genius to figure out if someone breaks the law by entering our country illegally you do not reward them with granting citizenship to their offspring. 🙄…But yeah that’s the liberal MO. Try to attribute a common sense position to a sketchy individual to undermine the position. Unfortunately this ploy often works on individuals who lack critical thinking skill’s.
Yet again The New York Times where the truth goes to die! Of the 180 or so countries in the world only five have birthright citizenship: The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Pakistan.
Don't forget that one of the first Supreme Court Justices to even consider the idea held that it was not universal birthright citizenship, and that Justice was appointed by Lincoln and a contemporary of the men who drafted the 14th Amendment.
Common sense would inform that the anchor baby interpretation of the 14th Amendment is nonsense. Limbaugh and Levin have spoken and written at length regarding the actual meaning as explained by the fellow who wrote the Amendment. It was all about the freed slaves after the Civil War, to ensure that their citizenship in the United States was by birth in this country, regardless of the status of their parents at the time of birth.
The Times ought to do one of its favorite comparisons with Europe. Are anchor babies ok there? I know but I'll leave that to them to figure out, just common sense you know. Of course my information might be old, and new laws may have been written in England, France, Germany removing citizenship from white babies born there and granting everyone else citizenship, even if they are just thinking of moving. They have outlawed common sense.
It's high time that SCOTUS defines what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause along with being a person "born or naturalized in the United States". BOTH elements are necessary to confer citizenship. Birth alone is NOT enough.
Good article, except where you call Eastman a "kook." He's not a kook. He is now being persecuted for his wise council to Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. What country is this where one can be persecuted for a legal opinion? You should not hold the coats of his persecutors.
Yes Anne’s argument as you say is basically that when a person argues a point that he may be correct on, the MSM first discredits them in some way so that they seem like a “kook” instead of sticking with the argument and facts. Knowing that they often do this, she was basically saying”I’ll go with the kook” not because he is a kook but because he’s been branded as such for reasons unrelated to the facts of this argument. While I do not speak for Anne that is how interpreted her satiric comment. Mr. Eastman has still not been disbarred as far as I could tell at this point.
I partly agree. It is satire, and it is well written. In critiquing the increasingly common ad hominem by proxy, she shows that an argument held by a faulty individual does not mean that the argument itself is faulty. We should all agree that this is an example of faulty reasoning.
Here, in the formulation by Abbie VanSickle, writing for the NYT, the faulty individual is law professor, and legal and constitutional scholar, John Eastman. While Ann correctly shows that Eastman's character has no bearing on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, she unfortunately agrees with VanSickle and others, calling Eastman, " . . . a disbarred, debunked 'obscure California law professor' who helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election."
I’ve read about Eastman’s opinion advocating the constitutionality of Trumps challenge to the 2020 election based on numerous procedural violations. I’m not a lawyer myself, but I found Eastman’s argument to be well reasoned and persuasive. Taking this position has not been easy for Mr. Eastman. His political enemies are trying to disbar him. All on the right should respect the courage of and sacrifices made by this man. Implying, as Ann does, that Eastman is a ripe target for mockery is neither helpful nor decent.
Brilliant article and cursory research from unbiased sources makes a very compelling case that babies born of illegal alien parentage are NOT citizens at birth and the 14th amendment does not confer jus soli upon all illegal alien babies. The Wong Kim Ark case only conferred birthright citizenship upon babies of parents who are legal permanent residents. When the 14th amendment was ratified American Indians born on U.S. soil did not qualify for citizenship but somehow illegal aliens do? American Indians did not receive citizenship until it was specifically granted to them by Congress in 1924.
It's sad that America has taken such a far left wing turn that this issue is so controversial. I also have little faith in the Supreme Kangaroo Court of the United States to deliver a common sense and pro-American ruling which would be to deny birthright citizenship to all anchor babies. Most of the time when the high court feels political pressure it seems that they rule on the side of the radical left wing (Obamacare, gay marriage, etc.). They probably don't want to upset all of the leftists at their Beltway cocktail parties.
"They probably don't want to upset all of the leftists at their Beltway cocktail parties."
Not to mention not wanting to upset their blackmailers.
I fear and think you are absolutely right.
Like a brilliant detective, Ann nails it! Spots a common modus operandi, calls it out and then calls out how the left then rinses and repeats the dubious character assassination in an effort to dispute it incorrectly. Then spread the lie because some legacy MSM propaganda tool must be right, correct? Nah!
Nice read, Ann, as usual. I first sat down with Eastman at Chapman University back in 2008 or thereabouts to interview him about the issue of birthright citizenship, public policy and the 14th Amendment. As a recognized scholar on constitutional law, Eastman's viewpoint on the issue seemed not only well within the recognized perimeters of legitimate debate (his was not a flat earth perspective, legally speaking) but anchored in established historical fact and thoughtfully advanced by a reasonable assessment of the case law cited as precedent. I met with him several times to discuss the disaster of birthright citizenship and also Edward Erler at CSU San Bernardino, who The Times also named in their story. In 2009, my essay American Jackpot: The Remaking of America Through Birthright Citizenship was published by Californians for Population Stabilization. Both Eastman and Erler are thoughtful scholars whose analysis on the issue was hardly fringe—back then or now—but rather they offered an unflinching assessment of the dubious legal standing underpinning the disastrous policy of birthright citizenship. The NYT sold off its credibility on the issue of mass migration (among others) long ago.
Ms. Van Sickle's bio speaks for itself... https://www.nytimes.com/by/abbie-vansickle
I love the first sentence- about "the world of the court, including its role in politics and the lives of the justices..." like it is a soap opera! So many are brainwashed already on birthright citizenship and there is so little courage that I fear the best we are going to do is a Thomas/Alito dissent. We'll be lucky if the court shoots down the case because it is an executive order and says that Congress must pass legislation on the issue of citizenship. My fear and what I expect is a 5-4 (or worse, maybe 7-2 with concurrences in part etc.) saying essentially that Congress' failure to act for however long enshrined the notion of birthright citizenship as a Constitutional right. "After all, what do we do about the millions of anchor babies who are already treated as citizens, and in many cases, already reached adulthood?" Of course, a law could be prospective in dealing with this, but the majority will be too lazy.
Anyway, I hope I am wrong. Either way, this should have been dealt with 30 or more years ago. The same goes for English as the official language.
That's a valid fear and concern and the high court isn't above mealy mouthed doublespeak in their rulings since they seem to wish to placate both sides so as not to appear partisan. The Congress is too lazy to settle this and most GOP representatives fear their major donors who support illegal aliens and the massive labor oversupply it brings since it drives down wages and benefits.
I’m no law professor, federal judge or lawyer. However it does not take a genius to figure out if someone breaks the law by entering our country illegally you do not reward them with granting citizenship to their offspring. 🙄…But yeah that’s the liberal MO. Try to attribute a common sense position to a sketchy individual to undermine the position. Unfortunately this ploy often works on individuals who lack critical thinking skill’s.
Please retire, Sotomayor
I do hope she isn't killed by a drunken latino driver. That's one of their particular specialties, along with abusing underage relations.
Yet again The New York Times where the truth goes to die! Of the 180 or so countries in the world only five have birthright citizenship: The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Pakistan.
Don't forget that one of the first Supreme Court Justices to even consider the idea held that it was not universal birthright citizenship, and that Justice was appointed by Lincoln and a contemporary of the men who drafted the 14th Amendment.
Common sense would inform that the anchor baby interpretation of the 14th Amendment is nonsense. Limbaugh and Levin have spoken and written at length regarding the actual meaning as explained by the fellow who wrote the Amendment. It was all about the freed slaves after the Civil War, to ensure that their citizenship in the United States was by birth in this country, regardless of the status of their parents at the time of birth.
The Times ought to do one of its favorite comparisons with Europe. Are anchor babies ok there? I know but I'll leave that to them to figure out, just common sense you know. Of course my information might be old, and new laws may have been written in England, France, Germany removing citizenship from white babies born there and granting everyone else citizenship, even if they are just thinking of moving. They have outlawed common sense.
It's high time that SCOTUS defines what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause along with being a person "born or naturalized in the United States". BOTH elements are necessary to confer citizenship. Birth alone is NOT enough.
Good article, except where you call Eastman a "kook." He's not a kook. He is now being persecuted for his wise council to Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. What country is this where one can be persecuted for a legal opinion? You should not hold the coats of his persecutors.
Yes Anne’s argument as you say is basically that when a person argues a point that he may be correct on, the MSM first discredits them in some way so that they seem like a “kook” instead of sticking with the argument and facts. Knowing that they often do this, she was basically saying”I’ll go with the kook” not because he is a kook but because he’s been branded as such for reasons unrelated to the facts of this argument. While I do not speak for Anne that is how interpreted her satiric comment. Mr. Eastman has still not been disbarred as far as I could tell at this point.
Anne surely had her tongue firmly in her cheek during that remark. Can’t you see her saying that with her trademark smirk?
I partly agree. It is satire, and it is well written. In critiquing the increasingly common ad hominem by proxy, she shows that an argument held by a faulty individual does not mean that the argument itself is faulty. We should all agree that this is an example of faulty reasoning.
Here, in the formulation by Abbie VanSickle, writing for the NYT, the faulty individual is law professor, and legal and constitutional scholar, John Eastman. While Ann correctly shows that Eastman's character has no bearing on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, she unfortunately agrees with VanSickle and others, calling Eastman, " . . . a disbarred, debunked 'obscure California law professor' who helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election."
I’ve read about Eastman’s opinion advocating the constitutionality of Trumps challenge to the 2020 election based on numerous procedural violations. I’m not a lawyer myself, but I found Eastman’s argument to be well reasoned and persuasive. Taking this position has not been easy for Mr. Eastman. His political enemies are trying to disbar him. All on the right should respect the courage of and sacrifices made by this man. Implying, as Ann does, that Eastman is a ripe target for mockery is neither helpful nor decent.
You mean ...overturn the STOLEN 2020 election, no?
The New York Times is a dumpster fire full of garbage. Pure 💯 trash
NYT delenda est!
The sagacious Ann Coulter on The Mark Simone Show - (5-21-2025)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cfudcDSp0
Thanks Ann. Great article.