Below is my column in the Hill on the move of the Trump Administration against birthright citizenship. The Trump Administration believes that this is a fight worth either winning or even losing in the courts. Roughly half of the country oppose birthright citizenship. The key is where those voters are coming from. The minority of voters supporting the right are overwhelmingly coming from the Democratic core that opposed Trump in the last election. In other words, it is an issue appealing to the very margin voters that will be needed in the midterm election. That makes this a perfect wedge issue either as a court fight or, if unsuccessful, a fight for a constitutional amendment.
Here is the column:
This week, the Trump administration doubled down in its fight against birthright citizenship. The usual alliance of pundits, professors and press lined up to declare any challenge to birthright citizenship as absurd. Yet the administration seemed not only undeterred, but delighted.
There is a reason for that euphoria: They believe that they cannot lose this fight.
The legal case against birthright citizenship has always been tough to make, given the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in federal courts and agencies. Many in academia and the media have shown unusual outrage toward anyone questioning the basis for birthright citizenship as a legal or policy matter.
This is perhaps best evinced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe’s profane tirade the last time Trump raised this issue years ago: “This f—ing racist wants to reverse the outcome of the Civil War.”
Putting aside that the Civil War was fought over slavery, not immigration, many at the time would have disagreed that this was one of the outcomes of either the Civil War or the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment starts and ends as a model of clarity, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” However, sandwiched between those two phrases, Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed many since they were first drafted.
For some, the line must be read as a whole and guarantees that anyone born within the United States becomes an American citizen. For others, the six words cannot be read out of the amendment as superfluous. They argue that this indicates that the parents must be here in a legal status, either as citizens or legal residents.
This division was evident at the very birth of the amendment. Some of those debating the question clearly believed that the amendment did cover anyone born on our soil regardless of the status of the parents. During the debates, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Senator John Conness of California answered this in the affirmative.
Others indicated the opposite understanding. Senator Jacob Howard, coauthor of the Fourteenth Amendment, said it was “simply declaratory” of the Civil Rights Act to protect freed slaves.
Howard assured senators, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Likewise, Senator Lyman Trumbull, author of the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and a drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment, said that the six words included only those “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”
This debate has raged for decades. While Democrats today portray anyone supporting the narrower interpretation as a racist or nutty, it was not long ago that many Democratic leaders opposed birthright citizenship, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). He later denounced his old position with the same passion.
The Supreme Court itself seemed conflicted in the relatively few cases that touched on this issue. In 1872, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the court interpreted the words “subject to its jurisdiction” as “intended to exclude from its operation” children of “citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” A few years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the court unanimously expressed “doubts” that citizenship would apply for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Then, in 1884, the Supreme Court handed down Elk v. Wilkins and held that parents must not merely be “subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power” To claim citizenship, they must owe the U.S. “direct and immediate allegiance.”
Supporters of birthright citizenship can cite countervailing authority to support their position. In 1898, the court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”
Anti-birthright advocates stress the court’s additional emphasis that the parents had to have “a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and [be] there carrying on business.”
Yet in 1982, in Plyler v. Doe, the court voted 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment required Texas to provide public schooling to the children of illegal immigrants, noting that there is “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
There are strong arguments in favor of the broader interpretation to include birthright citizenship, and the case law favors the conventional interpretation. Indeed, it is not clear whether the Trump administration could secure a majority of the court to adopt the narrower interpretation, including potentially skeptical conservatives such as John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
What is clear is that such an interpretation would likely need to be made by the Supreme Court (rather than lower courts) given the existing precedent in favor of birthright citizenship.
So what makes this a win-win proposition for the Trump administration? The politics are stronger than the precedent.
Even if the administration loses before the Supreme Court, it will force Democrats again to fight against a tougher stance on immigration issues. Democrats maintained that position in the last election despite polling showing that 83 percent of Americans support deportations of immigrants with violent criminal records and almost half support mass deportation of all undocumented persons.
On birthright citizenship, roughly half of the country now opposes it, according to a recent Emerson poll. That is consistent with much of the world. The U.S. is actually in the minority on the issue.
Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizens and follow the common practice of “jus sanguinis,” or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following “jus soli,” or right of soil.
That is why the Trump administration may win either way. It will either secure a new interpretation from the high court or it could spur a campaign for a constitutional amendment. All of this could unfold around the time of the midterm elections, when incumbents of the president’s party are generally disfavored. This is a wedge issue that many in the Republican Party might welcome.
Indeed, the most relevant quote from the Civil War period may be that of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in the final year of the war, when he declared “I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.” It was a war of attrition, and Grant liked the odds. Some conservatives seem to have the same view of the lay of the land in the fight over birthright citizenship.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Maybe someone already said it – but how many TBE scouts would have to recuse ? Are they birthright? Is the admins own case going to collar if they are not birthright? Donald may be Ellison island – maybe – but Melanie is nkt. So what makes Barron a us citizen – if their is no birthright? Just asking!
Indeed are any of the presidents kid us citizens if there is no birthright?
Mr. Turley is partially correct that a Constitutional Amendment is needed for Congress to clarify the eligibility for automatic birthplace citizenship — but he’s wrong that a NEW Amendment is needed. We already have one!
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, a codicil added at the end, seems to have escaped JT’s attention:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This means that Congress can clean up ambiguities in the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
I still alive. Closer to god after my dad and see things more human. “subject to the jurisdiction” is the most powerful phrase went in lens of treason. Defensively against the Chinese et. Al. We need this “military aged’ migrants. We hate to say it need them as cannon fodder. Under our jurisdiction! Lucky for us international law is you live in a country you fight for it or face treason. Death. Hat is the option we should give migrants. Its a fork they are either loyal to America or not. If not death for treason – if so another to fight our cause. Subject to our jurisdiction means here – with no dip!somatic immunity. You here – you fight for usa. You don’t its treason. It is that simple. Under international norms – you don’t stick up for your host country – they can kill you treason. 3 to one the illegals will talk. Our vety laws on treason Make – them American. Never mind their anchor babies? Did trump repeal the housing ACT that prevents landlords knowing? Hi just don’t see how we see this immigration is all bad. Its mi!lions under our jurisdiction we can fodder firtst! That’s an insensitive fact but the alternative
NATO e we fodder our o- not willing is firing squad treasion. wn first. Be they under our jurisdiction – no dip!I magic covrr. They are 11 million cannon fire
Under our jurisdiction matters – for those to fight for us. Those who don’t are treason. I’ve I were ice I would not deport! I’d draft!! Card them as first fodder. They’ll either go home or fight for usa! And we could use 11 or15 mi!!ion milatty aged men. If we are honest! I’d feel safer knowing the me I and st at would fight with me to thwart the billions of Chinese men with no brides ready to be mktivated! Those 15 million military aged men – are looming good to me vs China’s billion men! If they dvsr
I’m out of answers. But perhaps you remember that yours was precisely the reason for the Fall of Rome.
Sorry about your dad. I’m in the same boat. Life sucks, eh?
Didn’t Congress overrule the Wong Kim Ark decision in passing the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924? They didn’t need a Constitutional Amendment to overrule the Supreme Court?….how was that possible?
In fact, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 wasn’t even challenged in any Court.
There goes the argument “Congress can’t change what the Constitution says”.
Naw, they only needed a congressional statute, as authorized by Article 5. But
that’s a whole ‘nothah story.
Because a lame prior Congress copied literal verbiage out of the 14A CC into law…..INA 301(A):
“A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth…”
where we have to begin is getting Congress to modify the law, clarifying automatic birthplace eligibility. On a reasonable timetable, jus soli could be ended, and completely replaced by jus sanguinis (citizenship inheritance).
Congress can’t change the constitution. Birthright citizenship, for everyone who is not born with diplomatic immunity, is required by the constitution and nothing you say can change that. Those who pretend otherwise are simply dishonest.
You have been brainwashed with a very shallow understanding of the Constitution.
The legitimate meaning (impact) of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause is that which its Ratifiers in 1868 were voting to approve. That was to give full US Citizenship rights to the emancipated slaves. “All persons born or Naturalized in the US… refers to those persons alive at the time of passage. It was NOT about babies born in the future getting automatic birthplace citizenship.
We know that this far-fetched interpretation was not on the minds of the Ratifiers in 1868, because there was in effect the past 70 years a means through which children of immigrants obtained US Citizenship — called Derivation. On the same day the parents swear Allegiance in a Naturalization procedure, any children under age 21 are automatically Naturalized. This process for immigrant children was uncontroversial in 1868, and was assumed to continue the same.
And it did continue undisturbed for at least 30 more years. That is solid proof that NOTHING in 14A was intending to change the pathway to citizenship for immigrant’s children (including babies).
The revisionist repurposing of the verbiage took place starting in 1898, with the Wong Kim Ark case. And, that expansive interpretation was never Ratified. That’s what you seem to be missing about the Constitution. It’s meaning and impact have to muster broad public consensus through a ratification process (Article V). Anything less holds much less legitimacy.
made for the children of slaves – YOU can’t change that
Correct!….because that meaning of the Citizenship Clause was understood who it pertained to, and was Ratified. The Citizenships of those African-Americans are sacrosanct and those of their progeny.
Unratified is the notion that every baby born on US soil is entitled to automatic Citizenship. That means Congress is free to legislate clarifying who is eligible going forward.
read the constitution. then read it again and again untill you understand exactly what it states. there is no birth rite.
Article 5 of 14A says that Congress is authorized to implement the terms of the Amendment with legislation. First in importance: 1) The meaning of the Jurisdiction Clause was widely in dispute even during the congressional debate on the amendment; 2) In that era, no one foresaw the possibility of a porous border or a national economy that would lure teeming hordes over the Mexican border.
A congressional statute would likely satisfy the SCOTUS, which only last year was emphatic that clarification of a vague provision in the 14th amendment absolutely required a congressional statute.
The bona fide question (IMHO) is: “Does Article 3 cover birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens?” or “Does coverage require a congressional statute under Article 5?” Man proposes … SCOTUS disposes.
Being born in the U.S. does not make you a citizen if your parents came here illegally. Period. No debate. No loopholes.
If your parents were still under the laws of their own country and they broke U.S. law by sneaking in, their kids do not magically get American citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER ruled otherwise. Don’t believe me? Fine—go ahead and show me the Supreme Court case that says children of illegal immigrants automatically get citizenship. You won’t because you can’t because such a case doesn’t exist.
If simply being born in America were enough, then the kids of foreign spies, enemies, criminals and diplomats would all be U.S. citizens. That would be absurd. A country has the absolute right to decide who gets to be a citizen, and nowhere in our history did the Founding Fathers say, “Hey, just make a break across the border, and your kid can stay forever.” That was never the deal.
There’s a reason laws exist—and they are not based on feelings, wishes, or whatever you want to be true. Read history. Learn the Constitution. And stop making things up.
Being born in the U.S. DOES make you a citizen, unless you were born with diplomatic immunity. Your parents’ legal status has nothing to do with it.
So yes, children born here to foreign spies, enemies, and criminals are US citizens. Children born to diplomats are not, because they are born with immunity.
Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
“Lying”. “Dishonest” As we all know Milhouse is often wrong but never in doubt. Using such language with respect to those on the other side of this discussion has no place here.
As I read the professor’s article, there are rational, respectful arguments on both sides with support in the legislative history and case law for both. I will admit that the “jus soli” side of the argument will likely prevail over the “jus sanguinis” side but I will wager that the decision will be close at the Supreme Court. I simply cannot believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended that a pregnant woman who sneaks across the border in the dead of night, has her baby, and then returns to her homeland a few hours later has created a new American citizen. But then I must be “dishonest” and “lying”.
“Using such language with respect to those on the other side of this discussion has no place here.”
Hear, hear!
Any illegal alien who is not either incarcerated for their unauthorized entry, or on a plane back to their country of origin, is by definition, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Res ipsa loquitur
Period.
On the contrary, any illegal alien who is not subject to US jurisdiction CAN’T be incarcerated! If the US has no jurisdiction over the person then they are exempt from all laws, and can’t be arrested, let alone deported. That’s how it is for diplomats. And it is very much not how it is for anyone else, which is why anyone else’s children born in the USA are automatically citizens.
If they cant be arrested and deported, then they are still here and not in custody as REQUIRED by 8 USC 1325. Obviously no jurisdiction, or they would be.
Thanks for proving my point.
Res ipsa loquitur
When Obama took birthright citizenship to court, the court said it was illegal.
No, he didn’t, and no, it didn’t.
Yes he did and yes it did.
Spastic
People who argue that kids of illegal immigrants automatically get U.S. citizenship are completely misreading the Fourteenth Amendment. The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which doesn’t just mean being physically present in the U.S.—it means owing complete allegiance to this country. The people who wrote the amendment made it clear that this doesn’t apply to foreign nationals who are here unlawfully. It was meant to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, not to create a loophole where someone can break the law, have a baby on U.S. soil, and suddenly that child is a citizen. The Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark only ruled on children of legal immigrants, not those of people who entered illegally, so using that case to justify birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is just wrong.
If being born here was all that mattered, then children of foreign diplomats or even invaders could claim U.S. citizenship—obviously, that’s ridiculous. A country has the right to decide who its citizens are, and it makes no sense to reward people for breaking immigration laws by handing their kids automatic citizenship. That’s not how sovereignty works. No serious reading of the Constitution supports the idea that just showing up—without permission—means your child gets full legal rights as an American. Citizenship isn’t a free-for-all; it’s a legal status with rules, and being born to someone who ignored those rules shouldn’t be an exception.
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
“The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.”
– P.A. Madison https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Let’s try two much esteemed frauds Obama and Harris. BOTH returned to the US before age 18 to claim birth citizenship Obama by mother and Harris by a naturalized father.
Obama held triple citizenship as his step father had adopted him. I suppose his mother filed un-adoption papers. Sure. Triple citizenship is not legal. Kenya is automatic derivative to spouse and offspring.
Take it from there….
Over and out.
Triple citizenship IS legal. There is no limit to how many countries a person can be a citizen of simultaneously. And there is not one word in the constitution barring a dual, triple, or sextuple citizen from being president.
Both 0bama and Harris were born US citizens, in the USA. Nothing that happened to them later can change that, except voluntary renunciation as adults, which they never did. Adoption doesn’t change it, naturalization in another country doesn’t change it, using a foreign passport doesn’t change it, nothing.
Whoever this P.A. Madison person is, he’s wrong. And he knows he’s wrong; he’s just lying.
Who cares what you think?
Turley’s little piece today begins with the false claim that “roughly half” of Americans oppose birthright citizenship. Not true according to a poll conducted by the Associated Press last month:
“More American adults oppose than support President Donald Trump’s proposed changes to birthright citizenship, according to a poll conducted by the Associated Press in January.
The poll indicated that only 3 in 10 American adults were in favour of changing the Constitution to prevent automatic citizenship for children born in the US to illegal immigrants and temporary residents.”
Three in 10 is 30%–which is WAY LESS than “roughly half”. Even the more limited Emerson poll provided less than half support for deporting all migrants.
Also according to “Newsweek”, Turley’s numbers regarding support for deporting migrants who have not committed violent crimes are off–while most support deporting those convicted of a violent crime, less than half support deporting all of them:
“An AP-NORC poll, conducted from January 9 to 13 among 1,147 adults, found that 83 percent of Americans support deporting migrants living in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of a violent crime, while only 6 percent would oppose doing so.
Americans are more split on deporting all undocumented migrants. The poll found that 43 percent support doing so, with 37 percent against.
Policies like family separation are less popular. Only 28 percent of Americans would support deporting undocumented immigrants who would be separated from their children who are citizens, while 55 percent are opposed.”
So, now, Turley’s trying to spin Trump’s illegal EO into some kind of “win” to offset the probable losses in the midterms. It’s pathetic, really. What other President has tried this?
And, Turley, stop trying to equate “conservatives” with MAGA–they aren’t the same thing. MAGAs are devotees of a cult of personality. Conservatives are not.
Since Trump is always vague about whether revoking birthright citizenship would be retroactive, I can see how an anti-reform-motivated poll could be worded so as to show only 30% support. That said, when asked who supports Birth Tourism, consistently 90% are opposed.
Yep. Polls said Hillary had a 99% chance of winning, and Kamala was gonna win too …. but you do you, chucklenuts
51 Intelligence officials stated that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. The list goes on and on.
Hillary won the popular vote but lost the EC because Trump’s campaign gave internal polling data to Russian hackers who used the data to spread lies about her in key districts where it could give him the EC votes. The “margin” of Trump’s “victory”, which was the product of lies, was within the margin of error—1.48%.
The democrat party has an unfavorable rating of 57%. CNN says that is the highest in the history of polling.
CNN also claimed that Trump is the ONLY President in history to have a higher favorable rating in the first month of their second term than at any point in their first term.
Suck it, Gigi
The USA is stealing the babies of foreign nationals, using the “anchor baby” argument. Great job demoncrats, if you aren’t murdering them, you are stealing them.
The other main component besides the general destruction of the USA the demoncrats demand is the big fat narcissistic ego issue. ” Well everyone wants to be a citizen of the USA! We are so great ! Everyone literally in the world wants to be us ! ”
They spew that forth then pat themselves on the back for being such great tenders of America and suck up their own self proclaimed awesomeness. Of course admitting trillions in welfare and debt spending to BUY the “desire to come to the USA” is the real majority reason for all of it is not to be thought of or spoken out loud.
Just preen and applaud yourself in public while you give away the store, the profits, all the goods, the nation, sell out the locals and the founders and kiss the backside of the giant corporate blobs and government grifters demanding ever more debt be spewed upon foreigners and their offspring.
Trump is the first president at least since Reagan that is actually dedicated to putting America’s interests first. He understands that people from all over want to come here, and that just as many want access to our enormous markets. But unlike say, Biden, Obama, or the Bushes, he doesn’t want to bask in the glory all the while spending other people’s money to virtue signal. He legit wants to shut down the border and leverage other peoples’ desire for access to our markets to serve America’s national interests. He’s like the first parent in 40 years that wanted to protect his own family from the outside world. He sees that as the appropriate role for the POTUS, whereas the others are globalist ideologues and/or grifters (see: Joe Biden) who used our money to line their own pockets through kickbacks and pay-to-play schemes, with no care whatever of what is best for the American people.
Yes by starting stupid trade wars that unnecessarily tank the economy. America First!
You don’t read the news much, do you? Trump is getting other nations to comply through the threat of tariffs, and it’s glorious. Colombia is taking their criminals back, Mexico is putting troops on the border, and China is suddenly interested in negotiating with Trump.
The only place the economy is tanking is in your fever dreams.
My economy has not tanked. My economy is doing extraordinarily well. What happened to yours?
Looks like we are winning those wars without a shot. If the economy tanks I’m sure you’ll let us know but right now it’s just not true.
Maybe those Presidents simply defined America’s interests differently.
Oh my god, look who Lawn Boy decided to bring back from the grave.
The puppet who likes to ask questions and then answer them anonymously.
What next Elvis, will you revive Natasha?
Shakdi: there is NO SUCH THING as an “anchor baby”–meaning a kid born in the US, and therefore a citizen, can bring their entire family in as citizens. This is a MAGA media lie, calculated to mislead you MAGAs. From “PolitiFact”:
“t sounds like a way for illegal immigrants to get a foothold in the United States: Pregnant women from Mexico and other countries can come to the U.S. to deliver their babies. Voila! Under the 14th Amendment, the babies are instant citizens!
That’s become a popular talking point for critics of illegal immigration, who have dubbed the children “anchor babies.” The implication often is that the baby U.S. citizens act as an anchor that that helps parents and other relatives obtain citizenship and other benefits.
Several Republican senators, including Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., John McCain, R-Ariz., Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have called for hearings on whether the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, needs to be rewritten to curb automatic “birthright citizenship.”
The most prominent voice pushing that concept is Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who proposed amending the Constitution to make clear that babies born in the U.S. do not automatically receive American citizenship.
In a July 28, 2010, interview on Fox News’ On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Graham said that “there’s another problem we have in this nation that I think is novel and needs to be fixed. If you come across the border illegally and you have a child in America, automatically, that child becomes an American citizen. Under the 14th Amendment, three court cases says there’s a constitutional right to that. I would like to deal with the 12 million (illegal immigrants) firmly and fairly. You can’t stay here on your own terms. You have to learn English. You have to pay fines. You have to get in the back of the line if you want to be a citizen. But I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here. Birthright citizenship, I think, is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child’s automatically not a citizen.”
Later in the interview, Van Susteren asked Graham, “How realistic is it that you will introduce a constitutional amendment?”
Graham replied that he had to because “people come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave.’ To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child’s automatically an American citizen. That shouldn’t be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”
In a later interview with Van Susteren on Aug. 3, Graham once again referred to a “problem where thousands of people are coming across the Arizona-Texas border for the express purpose of having a child in an American hospital so that child will become an American citizen, and they broke the law to get there.”
We’ve dealt with one aspect of this issue before, when we checked a claim by Fox host Glenn Beck that “we’re the only country in the world” that offers birthright citizenship. (We found that 33 others do, so we rated Beck’s statement False.)
This time, we were curious about Graham’s statement that “people come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child.” He portrays it as such a big phenomenon that it warrants changing the U.S. Constitution. But is the problem as big as he suggests?
Limited benefits
It’s important to note that having an “anchor baby” won’t do much to help a Mexican mom become a U.S. citizen. Because citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21 — and because if the parents were ever illegal, they would have to return home for 10 years before applying to come in — having a baby to secure citizenship for its parents is an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.
However, having a citizen child can produce some short-term benefits, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute. Pregnant women and nursing mothers could be eligible for certain benefits under the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) program, which provides food and nutrition vouchers, and their children could enroll in Medicaid, although the undocumented parents could not. Having a child can also help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation, but only 4,000 unauthorized immigrants can receive such status per year, and the alien has to have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years. That means very long odds, Rosenblum said. ”
The Constitution says what it says—get over it.
Assertions that begin with “the Constitution says…” strike me as adolescent idealism. The Constitution doesn’t speak. It lacks a brain. It’s not an actor. It’s a roadmap for governing captured in a historical document.
The legitimacy of the Constitution and its many Amendments is whatever its ratifiers thought they were approving at the time (original intent). SCOTUS interpretations that strip its language of historical context and meaning, and repurpose the language to settle a newer controversy or create a novel impact — that carries comparatively little legitimacy, since the novel meaning extracted sidestepped the ratification process. This is true especially when a “precedent” is opposed by the public sentiment, and defies public consensus.
The Citizenship Clause has an odd syntax to be talking about babies getting citizenship at the time of their births:
“All persons born or Naturalized in the U.S….are citizens….” Why would the term “person” be used if the meaning were “newborn” or “baby”. Why wouldn’t it say “obtain citizenship”?
The verbiage fits a historical parsing that matches this translation:
Persons alive at this time (1868) who were born on US soil are hereby made Citizens.
That makes much more sense than “Newborns a century from now, at their moment of birth on U.S. soil, are to obtain automatic citizenship (i.e., not go through Naturalization at an older age).
There’s nothing odd about the language. It says if you were born in the USA, and were not immune from its laws at the time (i.e. your parents were neither foreign diplomats nor members of a sovereign Indian tribe) then you ARE a citizen for life. (Unless you voluntarily renounce it as an adult, but that’s not in the text, it’s just obvious that you can renounce any right you have.)
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Clearly the foreign Mexicans were not eligible for the benefit of the 14th Amendment which was written for the benefit of domestic freed slaves who were under the full jurisdiction of the United States.
Everyone understands that; some lie, saying they don’t.
The judicial branch should have struck down this type of immigration 75 years ago.
This failure of adjudication has persisted since fully constitutional secession was denied.
The corrupt Supreme Court of 1869 “decided” that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Anonymous: Turley says you are wrong. The Constitution applies to everyone born on US soil that is not the child of a diplomat or foreign emissary–not just domestic freed slaves. MAGA media latches on to the “jurisidiction” phrase and tries to argue that a child born here is not under the jurisdiction of the United States—that is factually untrue.
The Constitution does not say, “except the child of a diplomat or foreign emissary.” It uses a much more ambiguous phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
As Professor Turley demonstrates today, the meaning of that phrase was debated at the time of ratification and it is less than clear. It has been the subject of shifting interpretations by the highest court in our land. It is disingenuous to suggest, as you do, that it has a cut and dried meaning.
That is a ridiculous take. The plain meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is that it excludes children of diplomats, who are literally not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You can’t sue or prosecute them. That’s what it means.
I know “jurisdiction” has a lot of letters. But that doesn’t mean it is hard to understand. My goodness.
That is a ridiculous take.
What is? Saying it’s ambiguous? I guess you didn’t even bother to read Turley’s article, or consider the Scotus decisions he references. If it were that “plain” it wouldn’t have become the subject of shifting interpretations by the Supreme Court. All your pretending it’s cut and dried will not change the reality that it’s very unclear what was meant by the phrase . . . and ultimately Scotus will probably give us their interpretation within two years.
Please mention the goofy justices … a pardon is something you.must receive therefore it implies acceptance or rejection. 😏
Oh and what is a woman…priceless.
Turley has previously written about this— and he says you are wrong. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this— they say you are wrong.
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
“The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.”
– P.A. Madison https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Whoever this P. A. Madison clown is, he’s wrong, and he knows he’s wrong, he’s just lying.
I don’t think Turley said that.
Here’s an awful outcome of proponents’ insistence on birth”right” citizenship for some born in the USA. Mexican women cross the Mexico-USA border, entering New Mexico to give birth in the USA (and get free medical care for them and the babies); those of us who pay federal and state income taxes are thereafter saddled with the financial burden of those children/adults — beginning with their free medical care at birth. Believe it or not, just one example of the burden on working and retired taxpayers: school busses from the NM school districts abutting the Mexico-USA border travel to and from the border to transport these USA citizens who live in Mexico, but cross the border for schooling, “free” breakfast and lunch, etc. What a nonsensical and costly outcome!
So it happened again, SEX in an Army chopper at night on a training mission.
Army helicopter pilot Warrant officer 2 Andrew Loyd Eaves tried to make his move on LT Rebecca Lobach.
Maj. Gen. Tervor J. Bredenkamp should be court marshaled!
I’ve seen the officer & NCO pussy grabbers at Ft. Bragg. There are to many to count.
^^ Troll. Ignore ^^
↓↓↓ Troll. Ignore ↓↓↓
There’s a much better chance of a favorable Court review by passing Citizenship Inheritance legislation in Congress — specifying an orderly change process where all past Citizenships based on birthplace are sacrosanct, giving states and localities enough time to adapt, and handling all situations.
The EO was drafted hastily, and should be withdrawn as soon as Congress takes up lawmaking on this topic.
“THE JURISDICTION, THE WHOLE JURISDICTION, AND NOTHING BUT THE JURISDICTION, SO HELP YOU GOD”
Since “Operation Wetback” in 1954, millions of Mexicans and Central and South Americans have illegally entered the U.S., given birth, and claimed citizenship while under the full jurisdiction of Mexico and other countries of origin.
All of those claims of citizenship were and remain invalid, illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional and must be revoked and rescinded.
The legal status of all of the descendants of those who defrauded the U.S. and illegally claimed citizenship is similarly invalid, illegitimate, illegal, and unconstitutional.
Illegal aliens must be deported and compassionately repatriated to their countries of origin at their own expense for fraudulently misrepresenting their status and making false claims.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
“The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.”
– P.A. Madison https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Idiotic fantasy. There is zero chance of enacting Citizenship Reform in Congress if you start out demanding that 10 million past Citizenships based on Birthplace be revoked!! Do you want reform? Are you the slightest bit serious and goal-oriented? If not, stand aside, so the rest of us can move the ball.
Oh right, what about asylum? Will they all naturalize and prove reading writing and speaking English, too? Yeah, it’s so simple.
Whitey is such a rube especially middle class liberal whitey. Illegals knew and know exactly what they’re doing only you don’t.
After the fraud Obama does anyone really care?
Ok, well waiting for the trans for children opinion argued by Mr. Strangio.
YES, as a personal note I really really care about Jocelyn Nungaray. Really
I’m so sorry for your pain and loss.
IMAGINE what happened to her before she was put out of her misery by murder. I won’t even say the word
OBAMA WASTED $1.6 BILLION
Ivanpah, which got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, only produced a fraction of the power state regulators expected it would.
– Michael Bastasch
______________________
Pacific Gas & Electric said in a statement it had agreed with owners — including NRG Energy Inc. — to terminate its contracts with the Ivanpah plant.
– AP
“It’s the [law], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
What was the law on citizenship of the men who created this nation; what was the law of the American Founders on citizenship; what was their intent for their nation?
The Founders established the nation, its law, and its population.
The first tranche of illegal alien invasion was addressed by the law and not admitted to become citizens, and then someone circumvented the law and put a gun to America’s head.
Do you want reform? —- no, I want the law, from inception.
What do you want, comrade?
I wish J. Turley were not so wishy-washy about having a definite opinion on the matter at hand. He should know that P.A. Madison article is right. Too long a liberal I guess.
As usual, Trump used an Exec. Order to bring an issue into public focus. It certainly has done that!
The real traction is getting Congress to pass Citizenship Inheritance ( elevate jus sanguinis, phase out jus solis in an orderly fashion) following in the footsteps of Australia, Italy France UK and Ireland 40 years ago.
Congress has the authority to tweak citizenship eligibility (for those not having it yet) by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution is our friend (not out enemy) in pursuing this reform.
While this is a small and stupid fight triggered by backlash against the idiocy of democrats.
And I agree with Turley this is a politically good issue for Trump.
It is still NOT something we would be wise to change. The US fixates on its immigration problems – and we have problems.
But ours are much less significant than those of Europe.
The problems of jus sanguinis, are significantly worse than jus solis
The US needs to take in atleast 2M immigrants a year to avoid economic problems – or it needs to increase the birth rate by 1 child for every 4 people – which is not happening.
We WANT legal immigrants. We WANT to choose who immigrates to the US.
I would further note the choice is not between whites and other races – There are not 10% of the 2M immigrants the US needs per year that are white.
We are chosing between chinese, indians, philipeans. and african, south and central americans.
John, are you looking at unskilled labor needs 5 years from now? Smart robotics will be making a huge impact.
I’d favor a flexible immigration policy, where year by year adjustments can be made — not casting numbers in concrete.
Getting the domestic birthrate up should be a high priority, using all-of-govt policies and economics to enable young adults to marry earlier, and procreate confident of economic security.
Or, we could outlaw abortion. Sooner or later, that is what is going to have to occur. I look for Japan to be the first to do it. Or maybe, South Korea. Or China.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/japans-aging-problem-one-chart
A moral renaissance among teens (partially underway) is essential. History teaches that “shotgun weddings” (as before the ’70s) did not have a great track record — lots of abandonment and divorce.
Best approach is adults agreeing on the pathway for maturing teens that leads into stable, fulfilling marriages with children.
Interesting, affluent families are doing this for their own children, but publicly defend lesser family forms as equally worthy — very hypocritical.
# Follow the laws for crissake. It’s all there.
Trump will get a ruling on the 14th in context.
Then go to immigration laws for crissake.
Trump declared a national security emergency on the birder. He’s right and can and now he’s proceeding through the courts.
If you’re illegal 4get it. Get a passport and visa with a security clearance necessary IF you’re actually immigrating otherwise you’re an illegal tourist Lucy goosey.
Pbinca , they’ve inherited the parent’s illegal entry. How many times do you have to be told? Amnesty after amnesty. That’s it. Over. There is no birth citizenship on illegal entry and everyone knows that. Quit acting stupid.
My God it’s in black and white. It’s BS. Mayorkas handed out green cards as fast as they could be printed. This is only phase 1 of the BS.
It’ll be fun to read the opinion. What dishonesty to circumvent the meaning of the laws.
# Trump is spoiling for a fight as green cards are limited to 140 thousand per year but mayorkas was giving out a million while smugly saying your immigration laws are broken leaving out I’ve broken them.
Trump is beginning by taking off the laws and he’s begun with the 14th? He’ll move forward with the next until order has been established.
In September 2024 all green cards got an automatic 3 year extension. Not sure where that’s in the law?
There is no English proficiency required for millions of green card holders so it’s often the easier choice. The dispute arises when children are born of green card holders. Many green card holders have no intention of becoming citizens. The question is do the children born in the US with green card parents have birth right citizenship or does one or more parent need citizenship status. Derivative would say the children are green card holders when 18.
That’s it in a nutshell. They are not true immigrants because they never meant to be. Illegal entry is illegal. Green cards had no illegal entry.
Good luck as you have millions and millions of people speaking 39 languages in public schools.
140 thou per year is not millions. Trump has a national security emergency at the border and Mexico has deployed 10, 000 permanent soldiers to secure it. That route is closed.
Do you understand? Under Citizenship Inheritance, all newborns would inherit the nationality and US immigration status of their parents. Since illegal immigrants have foreign nationality and illegal alien status (no permission to remain in the country), their baby inherits that SAME nationality and status.
Yes, it’s called “talk the 60s”, “live the 50s.” I think it was Amy Wax, professor at Penn Law, who came up with it.
# It is flexible. Industry must inform the feds of how many they need and that includes colleges needing physics teachers and rural doctors. Some are temporary some not. There’s a yearly cap. Unskilled workers is a percentage only of the total. Millions of unskilled workers is unheard of.
Why don’t east Indians have this problem?