I first wrote this article, and it was published on clashdaily.com back on Nov. 1st, 2018. Given that the SCOTUS is finally looking at the issue, it feels like a good time to revisit it. Below is the piece as originally published.

The simple answer is no. However, the question of whether our current system of “birthright” citizenship is constitutionally legal is a very different question. We presently confer citizenship on anyone, regardless of parents’ legal status in the country, who is born in the U.S. or its territories. But is that Constitutional?

President Trump’s comments to Axios on HBO has led to a media frenzy on the topic, with reporting that shows a general lack of understanding of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution and the history behind it. Examples ranging from The New York Post’s statement, “President Donald Trump says he wants to order the end of the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States.” to the conservative National Review’s claim, “At first glance, the amendment’s language appears straightforward: All persons born in the United States are citizens — leading to the conclusion that if Trump and his allies want to change birthright citizenship, they’re going to have to amend the Constitution.”. Both outlets’ reporting insinuates that merely being born here grants you citizenship via the Constitution, but Constitutional scholars disagree on that point.

First, let’s look at the Constitution for the definition of citizen. Throughout the main body of the U.S. Constitution there is no legal definition or qualifications of citizenship. In fact, there was no national birthright rule within the States before 1866. The reason being that before 1866 the authority to distinguish alien from citizen was solely in the power of the States. After the Revolution, much of the pre-existing common law under English rule, including the concept of natural born allegiance (birthright citizenship of the day), was largely rejected by the States. The general rule was that children born to transient aliens or temporary visitors remained alien. Early states also required of aliens who desired to become residents of the State to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State.

The Constitution didn’t include a definition for citizenship until the addition of the 14^th Amendment. Best known for the concept of “equal protection of the laws”, the 14^th Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments, intended to aid in the rebuilding of the nation after the American Civil war and in this case, it was meant to establish former slaves as citizens. Section one of the amendment reads, “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The first sentence of section one clearly defines the requirement to be a citizen. But, there are many pro-illegal alien activists who want to debate (or flat out ignore) the meaning of the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. To best understand the meaning, as with all other parts of the Constitution, is to look at the language used and the debate leading to the framing of the amendment. During the debates of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns about such topics as including Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Also, Sen. Fessenden, co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee, raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country (an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine) and of course, the question of Indians. It is a common mischaracterization of the debates to say that Senators Trumbull, Cowan, and Conness suggested both the Civil Rights Bill and the 14th Amendment would make children born to Chinese or Mongolian parents citizens regardless of the legal status of the parents. This conclusion is incorrect because they were in fact discussing whether “race” of the parents should play a role. They were not suggesting that location of birth alone should be the sole requirement of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Historical context in place, it is clear that the framers of the 14^th Amendment thought, debated, and intended for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to be a pivotal part of the requirement for citizenship. And while some have challenged the meaning of the phrase, it should have been settled when, in the case of Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, the court said that the meaning of the phrase must be used in its “operational meaning”, which is to say how the Framers of the Amendment meant it.  Sen. Trumbull, one of the two primary framers of the 14^th, “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

In our current system, precedent often stands until challenged in a higher court and then overturned. This is true even when courts rule in a fashion that is not in line with the Constitution. Also true, is the fact that sometimes even the SCOTUS will offer an opinion that is more in line with social activism than with originalist constitutional philosophy. “Birthright citizenship” is a matter that has fallen into the realm of precedent based on 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and either intentional or unintentional interpretation of the 14^th Amendment. In order to clarify the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Congress has passed laws but the one thing most Americans can agree on is that no law can edit, amend, or overrule the Constitution; only a new amendment can do that.

If you look at the question of “birthright” citizenship from an “originalist” viewpoint, it is clear that the children of diplomats, tourists, and illegal aliens who are born in the U.S. are not eligible for citizenship. Decades of precedent have been granting citizenship to large numbers of children who are not qualified by the standard of the 14^th Amendment. Only a new hearing in federal court, going all the way to the SCOTUS, can correct this issue.

Can President Trump end this practice with just an executive order? No. But issuing an executive order on the matter might just be the easiest way to fast-track the question to the “Highest Court in the Land” and hopefully ending the practice of just giving away one of the most precious things that exist in this world, citizenship in the United States of America.

   Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has issued a broad ban of “artificial colors by the end of his term in 2029 or face government intervention.”  While the new directive was focused toward the biggest companies in the food industry like PepsiCo North America, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Tyson Foods, WK Kellogg, and JM Smucker (whom RFK, Jr. had meetings with the CEOs as well as representatives from the Consumer Brands Association), it is clear that all food manufactures and processors are expected to follow the edict.
   It is reported that RFK, Jr. told the executives that “removing artificial dyes is an urgent priority,” but he left what happens if the companies fail to comply intentionally vague. This ominous, open-ended threat was enough to make the markets react as stock for the food giants all dipped at a sharper rate than the S&P 500 in general (which was on a downward vector) pointing to investors’ concern about how the new directive will affect the bottom-line. (But to be fair, whenever the government gets involved to this extent, investors tend to get nervous, at least until they have a better idea of what the actual fallout will be.)
   How will the “removal of food dyes” policy affect the bottom line for food companies? Ultimately,, it is impossible to fully evaluate the question without knowing the ramificationsof non-compliance. After all, from a financial standpoint, it may be better to take the governmental penalty hit than a sales loss if the food is suddenly visually unappealing. People eat with their eyes, a,nd the U.S. market i,s not accustom,ed to seeing food that hasn’t been “dressed up” a bit to better meet an expected look. Add into the equation that there are surprisingly few “natural” food dyes that are as effective in coloring food items, and most are sourced in ways that are, shall we say, less than appetizing if you know the source. 
   This is a moment in time, however, where financial concerns may be overcome by both the true and the perceived health concerns that the dyes may present. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has been picking up steam for years, well before it got its shiny new branding to fall inline with the Trump 2.0 administration. The American consumer has never been more conscious of what goes into their food and what the effects could be. This could put the food companies at more considerable risk of losses if the public believed that they were happy to risk your children’s health to pocket a little extra coin per unit sold. Especially given that companies like PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, WK Kellogg, and JM Smucker have different formulations, without many of the food dyes, that they have been selling in Europe for decades. 
   Further evidence of the moment we find ourselves in (regarding food colors and safety) is the fact that many states did not wait for the RFK, Jr. ultimatum to begin taking action. California has outlawed Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Green 3 in school meals. West Virginia is moving forward with bipartisan legislation that would ban a wide range of dyes and additives from all food products sold in the state. Removing harmful additives from our food supply seems to be one of the few truly bipartisan issues in our current political chaos.
  As impactful as removing food dyes from our diets will be, RFK Jr. has his sights set on a much bigger target, the GRAS system. That is the FDA’s “Generally Recognized As Safe” program that gives food manufacturers great latitude in using ingredients based on claims that an ingredient has been safe in other applications as scientific grounds to claim without the FDA officially, independently approving the ingredient for use in the manner the food company is intending. But that is a different topic for another day; just keep it on your radar.
   The question now isn’t, “does the American consumer want healthier options,” that has been made clear, and the answer is a resounding YES. The question is how those same consumers will react when they get what they are asking for. Will steak and ground beef sales hold steady when all the beef looks grey instead of red? Will they be as drawn to that banana pudding that is a natural off-white color instead of the yellow we all think of when we think banana? Well, we certainly can get used to these things if we have enough time. The US consumer, however, is notoriously impatient and very vocal during this kind of transition. So expect grumbling from the public and a bumpy ride for the food companies (in fact, some of the smaller companies may not survive to change. 
   Will MAHA succeed? It all depends on your definition of success, but time will tell.    

   I recently wrote about how Iran has effectively captured Venezuela as a proxy state in an article / op-ed that you can find at BizPac Review or here at locals. Iran has been "gifted" a large amount of land in Venezuela; It has entered into a 20-year "partnership agreement," and it has built (and is operating) a military drone factory at a Venezuelan military base, plus providing training on how to use the multiple attack UAVs that are being built there. While this is a reason to be concerned, things escalated a bit over the weekend and have been significantly downplayed by the legacy media to the point that next to no one is even talking about it.

   This past Saturday (January 11th, 2025), during Venezuela's "International Anti-Fascist Festival" in Caracas, the socialist dictator and Iranian lapdog Nicolás Maduro threatened to invade Puerto Rico, saying,  "Just as in the north they have a colonization agenda, we have a liberation agenda." and then adding, "The freedom of Puerto Rico is pending, and we will achieve it with Brazilian troops." No matter how serious you may take this threat - sabar rattling by someone looking to position himself in the eyes of the rest of South America, impress his Iranian, Russian, and Chinese "friends," just a big mouth who had a little too much to drink before taking the stage - whatever you may think, it s a clear, open threat against an American territory. (Kudos by the way to Jenniffer González-Colón, the current governor of Puerto Rico, who had the sense to skip reaching out to the (technically-still-in-charge) Biden/Haris White House and directly wrote Trump asking the in-coming administration to "to respond to the dictator's threat."

   Meanwhile, in Western Europe, China is looking to increase its influence in Germany. Chinese officials are working on a deal that would see Chinese automakers move into German automotive factories slated for closure and are particularly interested in Volkswagen's sites. Germany has previously been greatly dependent on Russia for energy (and reports vary as to the reality of how much that has actually changed since the Ukraine conflict), but taking the word of the German government about it, Germany can ill afford to trade that out the Russian influence for Chinese influence on what is (at least for now) the largest economy in the European Union.

   The pieces continue to be moved around the board by the Axis. And while the CCP and Iran lay the groundwork for what both believe will eventually end with them individually dominating the world, the Biden/Harris administration (either by incompetence or by design) continues to make it easier for what's left of the Free World to fall. January 20th, 2025, can't get here fast enough. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but at least he is not losing a game of Chutes & Ladders when the adversaries of the United States are playing 3-D chess.