>>/180124/,  >>/180125/,  >>/180126/,  >>/180127/,  >>/180128/,  >>/180129/,  >>/180130/,  >>/180131/,  >>/180132/,  >>/180133/,  >>/180134/,  >>/180135/,  >>/180136/,  >>/180137/,  >>/180138/,  >>/180139/,  >>/180140/,  >>/180141/,  >>/180142/,  >>/180143/,  >>/180144/,  >>/180145/,  >>/180146/,  >>/180147/,  >>/180148/,  >>/180149/,  >>/180150/,  >>/180151/,  >>/180152/,  >>/180153/,  >>/180154/,  >>/180155/,  >>/180156/,  >>/180157/,  >>/180158/,  >>/180159/,  >>/180160/,  >>/180161/,  >>/180162/,  >>/180163/,  >>/180164/,  >>/180165/,  >>/180166/,  >>/180167/,  >>/180168/,  >>/180169/,  >>/180170/,  >>/180171/,  >>/180172/,  >>/180173/,  >>/180174/,  >>/180175/,  >>/180176/,  >>/180177/,  >>/180178/,  >>/180179/,  >>/180180/,  >>/180181/,  >>/180182/,  >>/180183/,  >>/180184/,  >>/180185/
And you heard this brought up during the hearing. It held that the citizenship clause grants birthright citizenship to a child born in the United States of a legal, of legal, legal resident aliens. 
Well, where does it say that? Nowhere. Nowhere.
I think this decision was wrong. Others do, too. 
But let's pretend it's right. There's a lot of debate about it, but it's not relevant to the issue of children born of illegal aliens, because that wasn't what the case was about.
Children of illegal aliens in the United States. 
The fact is, and it is indisputable, that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of creating a universal right of birthright citizenship. 
None stated, none imagined. 
There is not a scintilla of evidence, as I said, to the contrary. 
In fact, the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion. 
To be crystal clear, at no time did any Senator or Congressman in 1866 or 1868, whether involved in the legislative or amendment processes or not, declare for birthright citizenship as a universal rule. Nowhere.
At no time was the idea of foreigners coming to the United States legally or illegally considered an automatic conference of citizenship on children born here. 
In the case of illegal immigrants, The argument is utterly absurd. 
Finally, to most of the Supreme Court Justices, who did not comport themselves well, in my view, with either the facts or the Constitution. 
The issue is what the Constitution says, not what you want it to say.
The 14th Amendment in particular, and the intent and meaning of those who wrote it and debated it. 
It has nothing to do with what lower court judges have opined. It has nothing to do with current practices. 
It has nothing to do with the administrative processes. 
It has nothing to do with the intent of illegal aliens or some process for determining it. 
That can all be worked out by the other branches of government, the elected branches. 
Nor does it have anything to do with your legacy and how it will be treated by the liberal media, left-wing law professors at Ivy League law schools, and immigration activists. 
It has nothing to do with your understandable concern, if not fear, of intimidation by protesters, which would undoubtedly be treated much differently, I might add, by this administration than the prior administration. You'd be protected. 
The answer was actually straightforward and simple, and you all know it.
There's no such thing as birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens who are, by definition, in our country illegally, period. 
And it should be left to Congress, through legislation or amendment, or to the president by executive order to make determinations on what to do about it - not guesswork during a hearing.
Not nine Supreme Court justices, lawyers in robes. 
Your job is to rule on the Constitution and nothing else. 
Should you rule the other way and actually constitutionalize that which is both unsaid and illegal, you will do irreversible damage to the Constitution, the rule of law, the legitimacy of your court, and most importantly, our republic. 
You will formally incentivize and promote lawbreaking and illegal immigration.
You will legalize it through the back door and the children who are born from it.
 63