STOP misleading My President to issue an executive order declaring illegal aliens’ children are not U.S. citizens – they are not

“Birthright citizenship” or “jus soli” refers to the principle that a child born on the soil of a particular country is a citizen of that country. This is considered an “anomaly” and most countries reject it, preferring “jus sanguinis” or “by right of blood”.

Whoever is counseling the President to issue an executive order declaring that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not United States citizens is a clownselor not a counselor. An executive order is not needed for that purpose. An executive order would be superfluous. An executive order would invite litigation by the Demoncrats and the illegal alien coddlers or cuddlers. Enacting a law to declare that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not United States citizens would be unnecessary. U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens.

The Executive Department should simply implement the Constitution. The Department of State should refuse to issue U.S. passports to such illegal aliens’ children. The Department of Homeland Security should say “No” if asked to issue certificates of citizenship to illegal aliens’ children.

Reading the text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, its history, and the purpose behind it will lead to the inevitable conclusion that U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens.

The 14th Amendment reads in relevant part: “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.”

It is not sufficient for a person to be born in the United States to be considered a citizen. Such person must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, “children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King”. Therefore, such children are not citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).  See also 8 CFR 101.3(a)(1).

A constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, John Eastman, was quoted by Axios on HBO as saying that the Constitution has been misapplied, and that the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S., such as green card holders and citizens.

The children of illegal aliens do not have “full, political allegiance to the U.S.”  Furthermore, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. They are hiding, or as they say in Filipino – TNT (tago ng tago) meaning “hiding and hiding.”  When a person sues another in a United States court but summons cannot be served because the defendant is hiding, the court does not have jurisdiction over the defendant.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens come within the words of the 14th Amendment, they are not within the spirit and purpose of the 14th Amendment.



“In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature, or a constitution established by the people . . . regard is to be had . . . to the condition, and to the history, of the law.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 after the Civil War to ensure that slaves freed by the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 who were born in the United States would be recognized as U.S. citizens.

The 14th Amendment effectively nullified the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 693 (1857), which had held, 7-2, that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves,” cannot “ become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied (sic) by that instrument to the citizen.” Therefore, Scott had no standing to sue in federal court.

Cal Thomas, who has studied the 14th Amendment, wrote an article in the Honolulu Star Advertiser, a liberal newspaper, and quoted Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.) who authored the provision saying that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Sen. Lyman Trumbull (D-Ill.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee agreed, saying that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Sen. Howard responded, saying that the word “jurisdiction” ought “to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States . . that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

It is “crystal clear” that the 14th Amendment was intended solely for the benefit of freed slaves.

The people who adopted the 14th Amendment were not thinking of illegal aliens. There were no illegal aliens, as we know them, at that time. So, how can any one validly claim that the 14th Amendment – which was intended to benefit the newly emancipated “negro” slaves – confers U.S. citizenship to U.S. born children of illegal aliens who are not descendants of emancipated “negro” slaves?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed (D-Nev.) filed the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 to limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal residents saying that “no sane country” would grant birthright citizenship to children born on its soil to parents who lack legal status. He emphasized: “If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that’s a lot of services.”

Republicans and sane Democrats are united in their belief that only children of U.S. citizens and lawful residents are U.S. citizens at birth.

The case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), cited by illegal alien coddlers or cuddlers, does not involve the child of illegal aliens, but involves a child of legal residents. Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in San Francisco, CA, U.S.A. of persons of Chinese descent with a permanent domicile and residence in San Francisco who were never employed in a diplomatic or official capacity with the Emperor of China. When Wong sought re-entry to the United States after traveling abroad, he was refused admission on the ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld his claim that he was a U.S. citizen, based on the 14th Amendment, and allowed Wong to be admitted.

Therefore, reliance on Wong Kim Ark by illegal alien coddlers or cuddlers is “misplaced”. When I lived in Las Vegas, my Chinese friend, Mr. Wong (no relation to Wong Kim Ark), used to joke “Two Wongs do not make a right”. What he really meant was “two wrongs do not make a right” but some Chinese cannot pronounce “R”. Fuera de los buenos.


(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School where he specialized in Constitutional Law. He has also a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He placed third in the Philippine Bar Examination in 1956. His current practice focuses on immigration law and criminal defense. He writes law books for the world’s largest law book publishing company and writes legal articles for newspapers. He has a radio show, The Tipon Report, at KNDI in Honolulu, Hawaii with his son Noel, senior partner of the Bilecki & Tipon Law Firm, where they discuss legal and political issues. He served as a U.S. Immigration Officer. He wrote the best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws” and co-authored “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. Atty. Tipon has personally experienced the entire immigration process. He first came to the United States on a student/ exchange visitor visa to study at Yale Law School. He returned to the Philippines in compliance with his exchange visitor visa. He came to the United States for the second time on a non-immigrant work visa to write law books, then adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident, and became a naturalized citizen of the United States. Atty. Tipon was born in Laoag City, Philippines. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: [email protected] Website

What’s Up Atty 2018 11 14 US born children of illegal aliens not USC