Lets dive into this. Its been less than two weeks into Donald Trump's second term, and the criticism is already at a high point. People are saying Trump's first order about birthright citizenship is unconstitutional  and illegal. They are calling him names like a nativist or even a racist.

        But lets think about what the 14th Amendment really says.

        The 14th Amendment was made in 1868. It was made to give citizenship to freed slaves. The amendment states that anyone born in the US is a citizen. But it also says that this rule only applies to people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  The word jurisdiction means the power to make and enforce laws.

        The amendment's purpose was to make sure people who were previously denied citizenship in the 1857 court case Dred Scott vs. Sandford were now full citizens.

        What about the children of illegal aliens? Well, the amendment only applies to people who are completely under the law of the US. It doesn't apply to people who are still under the law of another country. People are saying Trump's decision is wrong.

        But the evidence says otherwise.

        In 1868, illegal aliens were not considered to be under the law of the US. This means they could not be given the same citizenship rights.

        But what does the law say? Some people say that the 14th Amendment gives birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. But the actual language of the amendment says something different.  In 1868, when the amendment was made, there were many people who were not considered to be under the law of the United States. This included illegal aliens.

        The 14th Amendment was made to give citizenship to people who were already under the law of the United States. It was not made to give citizenship to people who were not under the law of the United States.

         The amendment was made to give citizenship to people who were already under the law of the United States. It was not made to give citizenship to people who were not under the law of the United States.

        There are many court cases that support this.

        In the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases Justice Samuel Miller said that the Citizenship Clause does not apply to people who are not under the law of the United States. In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins Justice Horace Gray said that "subject to the jurisdiction" means that a person is under the law of the United States and not under the law of another country.

        Some people say that the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark changed all of this. But this case only applies to people who are under the law of the United States. It does not apply to people who are not under the law of the United States.  The Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe added a footnote in 1982. It said that Wong Kim Ark applies to the children of illegal aliens. But this footnote is not binding, and does not change the law.

        The original meaning of the 14th Amendment is clear. The drafters would have been shocked if people who broke the law and came to the US would be given automatic birthright citizenship for their children.

        There are many reasons why birthright citizenship could be a problem.

        But the main reason is that it could lead to a big increase in illegal immigration. This would be bad for the country.

        So, what does this all mean?

        The 14th Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

        Think about it in this way. If you break into someone's house, would you automatically be given the right to stay there? Of course not. The same logic applies to the 14th Amendment. If you break the law and come to the US, you should not be given the right to stay here. This might sound harsh, but it is the truth. The original meaning of the 14th Amendment is very clear. It does not give birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.  Its all about the law.

What Does the 14th Amendment Really Say?

Actions