Ramaswamy: Deport ALL Illegals — Including Their U.S.-born Children

It’s bad enough when Americans hear, and have good reason to believe, “Laws are only for the little people.” But there’s perhaps an even more bitter pill:

Having good reason to believe laws are also only for citizens.

This very much appears the case, too, when hearing endless excuses for why the pseudo-elites won’t deport illegal aliens and pondering that instead of there being “white privilege,” there’s flight privilege.

That is, take flight from your nation and invade another and privileges will be yours — as is happening in Illinois, where illegals are now getting money previously earmarked for needy citizens.

But one presidential candidate, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, has a simple remedy for this:

Build the wall, deport them all — including U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.

“That would be unconstitutional!” say critics. “These people enjoy ‘birthright citizenship.’” But do they? Some experts point out that birthright citizenship has not been established via the Constitution or federal law, but by executive fiat.

An article from the website The Net Worth Of and featured MSN.com has the Ramaswamy story, writing that in “a recent interview following a town hall meeting, Ramaswamy outlined his views on the immigration crisis and how he would address it if elected.”

“His proposed solution includes unapologetic deportations, ensuring that the family unit is deported together.”

“This approach is in line with his commitment to enforcing immigration laws while also prioritizing family unity,” the article continues.

Whether said tongue-in-cheek or not, Ramaswamy is merely responding to immigrationists who claim to care about “not splitting families apart” (in reality, the illegals did the splitting — when deciding to leave their families and break in to another country); these immigrationists further insist that this supposed imperative justifies chain migration, the importing of vast numbers of often unassimilable aliens into our nation.

In practice, this can mean that two illegals’ U.S. presence can be a pretext for bringing 11 more kin (some of whom they might not have seen in six years) to our shores for family reunification.

But if one really cares about family unity — really, truly — doesn’t it makes more sense to send the two illegals back to the 11 than to bring the 11 to the two?

That this obvious truth “eludes” so many could make a Crazy Conspiracy Theorist™ think that the goal isn’t family reunification but demographic inundation.

Birthright Citizenship?

Returning to the piece by The Net Worth Of, it also states:

[Ramaswamy’s] stance raises complex legal questions, particularly concerning children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

Ramaswamy’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which [allegedly] grants citizenship to individuals born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, differs from the prevailing interpretation.

He argues that being born in the country should not automatically grant citizenship if the child’s parents were in the country illegally at the time of birth.

In reality, Ramaswamy’s position is not unique, but reflects a long-standing conclusion of scholars who’ve actually studied the issue. As The Heritage Foundation wrote in 2018, the birthright thesis

ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

… This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

Heritage further builds its case, and you can read the whole article here. But the point is that birthright citizenship is extra-constitutional and was instituted via executive fiat; it’s not law. It also makes the U.S. a suicidal outlier among nations.

The deeper issue, however, is that Ramaswamy’s call for “unapologetic deportations” even must be made. Why are we apologetic in the first place about enforcing just laws and blunting a type of foreign invasion?

Not doing so has three serious consequences, too:

• As commentator Tucker Carlson has pointed out, it’s like taking outsider kids into your home and then lavishing benefits on them while ignoring your own children. The latter will become bitter and resentful.
• This undermines the rule of law and hence society’s fabric. After all, “Why should I follow the rules,” many citizens will conclude, “if foreigners don’t have to?” Pandering to illegals creates righteous-citizen law-breakers.
• Rewarding illegality by letting illegal migration pay off encourages more illegal migration. “Be sneaky enough to get into America, and the country is your oyster” is the message sent to the world.

The radicals aren’t those who’d protect the borders. The radicals are those sufficiently treasonous in spirit to care more about foreign ones than our own.