Column By Mike Bibb
Okay, here we go — stories about how President Trump disapproves of the Supreme Court’s approval of babies born in the United States, although the parents may have only been temporarily visiting at the time of the baby’s birth, or here illegally.
Place of actual residence of the parents, or the fact they entered the United States unlawfully, is of little concern. The Court says the child has all the rights of other children born here whose parents are natural U.S. citizens.
Supposedly, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was a pivotal influence in their decision.
Go figure, and how the Court Justices rationally arrived at that conclusion by a 5-4 decision. The 14th Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, and the 13th Amendment, ratified December 6, 1865, are post-Civil War amendments addressing slavery and the constitutional rights of former slaves.
What those two amendments have to do with babies of visiting parents or babies born to illegal parents already in the United States is relevant to the legality of their birth in the United States is a brain teaser. Particularly, after realizing the damage Joe Biden’s “Open Borders” inflicted upon our society — and continues to wreak havoc.
To emphasize her point, Ms. Norwood reports that U.S. Men’s Soccer Team player Folarin Balogun, born to Nigerian parents while visiting New York City on July 3, 2001, is a bona fide U.S. citizen.
Fact check: He was born in America when his parents were visiting, but soon moved to London, England. He is of Nigerian descent and was later raised in England.
Not America.
How does that make him a legitimate United States citizen?
Apparently, four of the nine Court Justices didn’t see the connection either. By a single one vote margin, it was determined a child born on United States property or territory, is automatically entitled to the full spectrum of rights and privileges of kids born from native parents in Safford, Arizona, or Kansas City.
Parents, whose ancestors may have been here for hundreds of years. Including mine.
I didn’t attend elementary, high school, or college with very many kids from Ethiopia, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nigeria, or the Congo. Can’t think of a single one.
Yet, apparently, if they happen to be born here while their parents pass through an American city en route to Europe, Africa, or Central America, they have the same defined Constitutional rights and safeguards as me or my kids and grandkids.
Donald John Trump was a New York City real estate developer in July 2001, Balogun’s birth year. He was not president for about 15 years.
In her article, Ms. Norwood noted that Trump objected to a red-card foul called by a soccer referee during the U.S. match against Bosnia. Trump phoned the soccer officials to express his discontent.
The committee suspended the red-card foul, allowing Balogun to play in the U.S. vs Belgium match — which the U.S. lost.
President Trump was merely expressing his displeasure with the call — his right as any U.S. citizen.
The undeniable truth that Folarin Balogun was born in the United States is not the issue.
He was.
The conflict rests in the conclusion that the Constitution allows the birth of anyone, from any part of the world, to become a recognized U.S. citizen simply because the parents were temporarily in the country or illegally entered, should have the same benefits and advantages as established citizens, which is what the Court got wrong.
At least, in my opinion — and, in the opinion of four of the Court Justices. Hardly an overwhelming decision.
I’m sure this judgment will be challenged in various ways.
