Has SCOTUS redefined the 14th Amendment to apply to birth tourism?

Justice Clarence Thomas raises a pertinent query regarding the term ‘domicile,’ and how it affects vacationers who visit the United States for the express purpose of birthing their children within its borders.

Upon delivering their babies while on our shores, there are thousands who then depart back to their homeland to raise those children where they are permanently domiciled, and thus under the jurisdiction of a foreign government for their entire lives.

If the majority decided that illegals living under the jurisdiction of the Unted States, because they are residing here, are to have citizenship bestowed upon their children born here, that is one interpretation of the clause in question. That will be covered later in this diatribe.

It can be argued that any who visit the United States for the sole purpose of birthing their child on our shores do not come under the ‘jurisdiction thereof.’ There is evident neglect in considering the wholeness of the sentence. “[C]itizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” states that they must reside in the United States.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. (emphasis, mine)

Babies delivered within the States but not residing here are ineligible for citizenship. It couldn’t be any more clear.

Why? Because they immediately turn around and return to their own country where the child is then permanently domiciled and raised under that other country’s laws, which have full jurisdiction over their lives. Those children have no claim to being domiciled in the United States for the simple fact that they never reside here.

This particular issue is related to birth tourism, particularly from enemy states such as Communist China. Any foreign national visiting the United States and giving birth while here is still domiciled in their home nation, and that includes that child who is returned to its permanent residence.

What we’ve just witnessed is an attempt by the majority to redefine words to fit a political agenda

THOMAS, J., dissenting:

Congress implemented the principle that citizenship follows birth and domicile in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Civil Rights Act guaranteed citizenship to persons who were both “born in the United States” and, as relevant here, “not subject to any foreign power.” Act of Apr. 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27. The phrase “not subject to any foreign power” excluded from citizenship children of foreign temporary visitors, who were subject to the power of their home nation. See, e.g., The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227, 246 (1817); The Venus, 8 Cranch, at 278–279. The Citizenship Clause, which the same Congress passed shortly after the Civil Rights Act, was understood to have the same meaning. It guaranteed citizenship to persons who were both “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Amdt. 14, §1. A person was subject to the jurisdiction of the government of his domicile. “Domicil” was “the foundation of jurisdiction over persons.” 1 T. Twiss, The Law of Nations 239 (1861) (Twiss). The government of person’s domicile had broad power over that person, including with respect to his personal affairs, his conduct abroad, his personal taxes, and the mutual duties of protection and allegiance. So, as the Senator who introduced the Citizenship Clause explained, “the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction . . . the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Cong. Globe, 39^th Cong., 1st Sess., 2895 (1866) (statement of Sen. Howard). After all, Congress “would have no right to make citizens” of “persons temporarily resident.” Id., at 572 (statement of Sen. Trumbull). (emphasis, mine)

What we’ve just witnessed is an attempt by the majority to redefine words to fit a political agenda.

This is nothing new. For millennia, language has been twisted and tweaked to provoke change of a nation’s moral culture.

Today, the word has been reinterpreted to invoke a fantasy, that biology has nothing to do with gender

 have seen this misapplication of meanings in words such as “gender.” Here is the original definition from Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

noun [Latin genus, from geno, gigno; Gr.to beget, or to be born; Eng. kind. Gr. a woman, a wife; Sans. gena, a wife, and genaga, a father. We have begin from the same root. See Begin and Can.]

Properly, kind; sort.

A sex, male or female. Hence, In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female. But although this was the original design of different terminations, yet in the progress of language, other words having no relation to one sex or the other, came to have genders assigned them by custom. Words expressing males are said to be of the masculine gender; those expressing females, of the feminine gender; and in some languages, words expressing things having no sex, are of the neuter or neither gender

To beget; but engender is more generally used.

To copulate; to breed. Leviticus 19:19.

Today, the word has been reinterpreted to invoke a fantasy, that biology has nothing to do with gender. That feelings are what make one a male or female.

Current culture has been redefining legal parameters of terminology in order to impose non-Biblical beliefs in an attempt to overrule the eternal Godly intent of the Founders’ language.

There are those who eschew the primary intent of law, what was written into the Constitution. That includes the Fourteenth Amendment, which was composed using the same definitions of ‘naturalized,’ ‘jurisdiction,’ implied domicil, and ‘reside’ as appeared in the 1828 dictionary that reflected the Founders’ application of language.

We are being subjected to poorly educated jurists who interpret constitutional language by their own subjective standards that reflect their lack of morality

We are being subjected to poorly educated jurists who interpret constitutional language by their own subjective standards that reflect their lack of morality.

Marxism is a prime example of how terms were given new meanings for the purpose of indoctrinating generations to accept an atheistic, anti-republic belief system. This is what underlies the folly of throwing out the original intent of the Constitution’s authors, which must extend to amendments made to the docunment after its adoption in 1789.

Domicile is where one is permanently housed – DOMICIL, noun [Latin , a mansion.] An abode or mansion; a place of permanent residence, either of an individual or family; a residence, animo manendi.(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

It is not a location where one is born, even if upon delivery they were under that state’s legal control for the span of days, a week, months, or even a year. It is where they are permanently raised and reside, where they give allegiance, not a happenstance of locale at birth.

Legal precedence does not change the intent of original language application no matter how much wishful thinking is written into judgments and opinions. SCOTUS hands down opinions, not rulings because it is not a corporate monarchy.

The Supreme Court of the United States is not infallible nor is it the final arbiter of the People’s will. If it writes an opinion that runs afoul of the Constitution by reinterpreting or redefining the language, it can be set right by Congress via a number of means.

So, here’s the other question regarding so-called birthright citizenship… Does Congress (though it currently does nothing but drag its feet) have the power to statutorily properly interpret the language of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been so tortured by cultural metamorphoses?

(“Popular” as a descriptor of cultural disfiguration is not being utilized here because Marxism and other minority-imposed aberrations aren’t actually accepted by the majority of Americans and, therefore, not ‘popular.’)

If Title IX can protect against discrimination by sex by elucidating the original intent of a Constitutional definition of male and female, men and women, why can’t Congress do the same with ‘jurisdiction thereof,’ ‘domicile,’ and ‘reside,’ regarding citizenship?

Had to ask.