I just hope the Supreme Court Justices have the intestinal fortitude to research the Congressional Record back then and they will find the TRUE INTENT of the 14th Amendment!!!!
Senmt from a friend;
From: redacted
To: redacted
Sent: 4/2/2026 11:43:50 AM Central Daylight Time
Subject: on illegalimmigrants
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the 14th Amendment’s assurance that the children of freed slaves were citizens also means that if an 8-month-pregnant Mexican woman runs across the border and drops a baby, that baby is a citizen, too. Or if China supports child-birth tourism to have a baby here, make it a US citizen, then return quickly to China, be anti-American indoctrinated for 20yrs, then be shipped back to the US.
msBS-NOW’s legal commentators keep claiming that the Supreme Court has NEVER found that anchor babies aren’t citizens. Nor has it ever found that they are. To the contrary, court after court after court has expressly ruled that the 14th Amendment is about freed slaves and freed slaves only. In what legal buffs like to call “precedent,” a long string of cases made absolutely clear that the clause refers only to: “the slave race” (the Slaughterhouse Cases), “persons of the African race” (Ex parte Virginia), “the colored man” (Strauder v. West Virginia), etc! As 1 Supreme Court decision put it, “[N]o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose” of the Civil War amendments, that “we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
Lawyers talk about the jurisdiction, residency and domicile requirements of the Amendment. All true, but the larger point is: WE HAD JUST FOUGHT A CIVIL WAR. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT? With 600,000 corpses still littering the landscape, the country did not rise up as one and shout: "Wait a minute — if a century later, millions of Mexicans, Africans, South Americans, Chinese, etc. run across the border and have babies, damn straight those kids will be citizens!" A proper ruling would restore the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment by recognizing that citizenship requires more than mere birthplace, it requires full allegiance and lawful jurisdiction. Extending automatic citizenship to children of those unlawfully present erodes the rule of law, undermines fairness to legal immigrants, and stretches constitutional language beyond its intended limits. By drawing a clear line, the Court would reaffirm that citizenship is a legal bond rooted in legitimacy, not a loophole created by unlawful entry. In sum, a strong case against automatic birthright citizenship for children of those unlawfully present rests on three pillars:
msBS-NOW’s legal commentators keep claiming that the Supreme Court has NEVER found that anchor babies aren’t citizens. Nor has it ever found that they are. To the contrary, court after court after court has expressly ruled that the 14th Amendment is about freed slaves and freed slaves only. In what legal buffs like to call “precedent,” a long string of cases made absolutely clear that the clause refers only to: “the slave race” (the Slaughterhouse Cases), “persons of the African race” (Ex parte Virginia), “the colored man” (Strauder v. West Virginia), etc! As 1 Supreme Court decision put it, “[N]o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose” of the Civil War amendments, that “we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
Lawyers talk about the jurisdiction, residency and domicile requirements of the Amendment. All true, but the larger point is: WE HAD JUST FOUGHT A CIVIL WAR. WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT? With 600,000 corpses still littering the landscape, the country did not rise up as one and shout: "Wait a minute — if a century later, millions of Mexicans, Africans, South Americans, Chinese, etc. run across the border and have babies, damn straight those kids will be citizens!" A proper ruling would restore the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment by recognizing that citizenship requires more than mere birthplace, it requires full allegiance and lawful jurisdiction. Extending automatic citizenship to children of those unlawfully present erodes the rule of law, undermines fairness to legal immigrants, and stretches constitutional language beyond its intended limits. By drawing a clear line, the Court would reaffirm that citizenship is a legal bond rooted in legitimacy, not a loophole created by unlawful entry. In sum, a strong case against automatic birthright citizenship for children of those unlawfully present rests on three pillars:
- The original meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as requiring full political allegiance.
- The importance of maintaining a consistent and fair legal immigration system.
- The need to preserve the integrity of constitutional limits rather than expanding them beyond their text and historical understanding.
This is not a rejection of immigration—it is an argument for restoring clarity, fairness, and constitutional fidelity to how citizenship is granted.
Thanks in part to the corrupt biden regime refusing to properly enforce the law, there are approximately 14 million illegal aliens currently living in the US, a record high. The broader foreign-born population increased by 6.5 million from January 2021 to March 2024, rising from 45 million to 51.6 million. Foreigners now make up approximately 15.6% of the US population, a proportion comparable only to 1890, when 14.8% of the population was foreign-born.
Systems, schools, emergency rooms, housing markets, and municipal budgets process people at a certain speed. When growth outpaces capacity, the real costs aren’t simply multiples of the original investment. They become exponential. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $150.7 billion annually after including the taxes they pay. That’s $957 yearly per taxpayer, and approximately $8,776 per illegal alien (or U.S.-born child thereof) annually. The Cato Institute challenges FAIR’s methodology, by disingenuously arguing that the children of illegal immigrants born here are citizens. Therefore Cato estimates net costs in the range of $3.3 billion to $15.6 billion per year. At the federal level, 2023 spending totaled $66.4 billion, including $23 billion on medical services and $11.6 billion on welfare programs such as food stamps, child nutrition, and Supplemental Security Income.
State and local governments bear the sharpest pain. The 3 primary cost drivers were K–12 education, emergency shelter, and border security. California spends $21.76 billion annually to absorb the consequences of illegal immigration. Texas spends $8.88 billion. Former New York City mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, stated he needed $2.8 billion for a single fiscal year to handle the influx amounting to $65,116 per migrant. Illinois offers a cautionary tale in unintended consequences. In 2020, the state expanded Medicaid to cover illegal immigrants. Program administrators projected $223 million in 2023 expenses. By 2024, spending was projected at $1 billion. After trimming the program, final costs came in at $550 million, still 90% over the original projection.
There is another cost that never appears on a government balance sheet but it’s very real, and the people absorbing it are those who can least afford to. When labor supply increases without a corresponding increase in demand, wages for native workers fall. It isn’t politics, it’s economics. Research from the Center for Immigration Studies found that for every 1% increase in the foreign-born share of an occupation, native-born workers see a 0.5% decrease in weekly wages. The heaviest losses are concentrated in construction, food services, maintenance, janitorial work, and agriculture, exactly where illegal immigrants and low-skilled native-born workers compete for the same jobs.
A national skill-cell methodology review found that a 10% increase in immigrants within a given education and experience group leads to a 3% to 4% reduction in wages for workers in that group. Workers without a high school diploma feel this most acutely. The Heritage Foundation estimated wage impacts for this group ranging from 0.4% to as high as 7.4%. The range is wide, but the direction is not in question. The blue-collar workers, working poor, and minority Americans most likely to face competition from illegal immigrants are the very people who can least afford further wage suppression. This is not new information. The Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by democrat Congresswoman barbara jordan with then-Governor b.j. clinton on the Advisory Board concluded in 1995: “The commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser-skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force.” The outlook is no rosier today.
Annual figures are alarming enough. Projected over a lifetime, they become sobering. Economist Daniel Di Martino of the Manhattan Institute modeled the lifetime fiscal impact of newly arrived illegal immigrants taxes paid versus government benefits received. The result: a $130,000 net fiscal burden per new illegal immigrant on average. For someone who arrives between the ages of 18 and 24 without a high school diploma describing a large share of illegal entrants that number climbs to $332,000 in lifetime taxpayer-funded benefits. Scaled to the full population in question, the lifetime cost of the current immigration situation could reach $1.15 trillion roughly $3,000 per US citizen, from this one phenomenon alone.
Advocates of open borders often cite GDP. The Congressional Budget Office projected that immigration would add $8.9 trillion to GDP over 2024–2034. That’s a real number. But as National Affairs noted, a high-GDP country isn’t automatically a high-standard-of-living country. India has a larger economy than Sweden, but that doesn’t translate to quality of life. What does translate is output per person, wages that cover rising housing costs, emergency room wait times, whether the local school has room for every student. In those terms, the numbers tell a different story:
-A net annual taxpayer burden of $150.7 billion
-More than $9 billion stripped from state and local budgets in a single year
-Documented downward wage pressure on construction workers, warehouse workers, home health aides the people who most need a raise
-A lifetime fiscal exposure exceeding $1 trillion
These aren’t slogans dressed as statistics. Taken together, they don’t make a case for open borders. They make a strong case that the country has been quietly paying a very large bill that most people have never seen.
Replies