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.”
Speaking of “Spoiling for a Fight”
“Panama’s José Raúl Mulino announced that his country would not renew its [Panama Canal] agreement with China’s Belt and Road Initiative . . .”
That is how a strong executive deals with a communist threat to America — while avoiding a military conflict.
Kudos to Rubio.
There goes the Trump WW3 narrative…ohhhhh, the horror! Can’t wait to see what evolves out of the tariffs. Should be the reckoning for Americans taxpayers.
“ Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed many since they were first drafted.”
No, it hasn’t “perplexed many” since they were first drafted. They knew exactly what it meant. It was ensuring that slave states could not deny citizenship to slaves within their jurisdiction. Southern states did not consider slaves to be citizens at all. They were property. It ensured that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the United States is automatically a citizen. There is no question about what they mean by “Jurisdiction” when they clause continues to define it in the end, “ nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Any person within it’s jurisdiction. Meaning within the jurisdiction of the United States as a whole. It does not say within individual states, municipalites, counties, or cities. It defines it as within the jurisdiction of every state that makes up the…United States.
There is no confusion or ambiguity about what the phrase “and within the jurisdiction thereof”. ‘Thereof’ means that of the United States.
When you’re born on U.S. soil you’re immediately subject to it’s jurisdiction. A newborn is subject to it’s laws and protections. The amendment starts with “All persons”, there is no ambiguity about that. All persons born, and naturalized. The second a baby is born it is subject to the rules and regulations of this nation. Trump trying to dislocate the those six words from the rest of the clause and subject it to a stand alone interpretation is not only seriously flawed, but it ignores the continuity of the entirety of the clause and it’s clear meaning. They are trying to obfuscate by focusing only on those six words that are not confusing or controverial as Turley falsely claims. He’s creating a false narrative and precedent. Making an excuse for Trump’s argument.
I respectfully disagree. If the drafters of the Citizenship Clause had intended to establish citizenship for immigrant babies at the time of their births, they would have used the more specific English word “newborn” or “baby” instead of the generic “person”.
Lost in all this judicial hair-splitting is the fact that in 1868, the was already a well-accepted means for immigrant children to obtain citizenship…called Citizenship by Derivation. On the same day the child’s parents were Naturalized, the child automatically became Naturalized. If that child happened to be born on US soil, it obtained Natural Born Citizen status — not at the time of birth, but later when its parents swore allegiance.
When the 14th Amendment was passed, nobody thought that protocol for immigrant children was being challenged or repealed. It had been the steady law of the land since 1790. AND, this is crucial to the legal argument, Citizenship by Derivation for immigrant kids continued as standard practice for the next 30 years AFTER 1868, as if nothing had changed.
This is the strongest proof that there was no intention in 1868 to create automatic birthplace citizenship for babies of non-citizens (even though a creative interpretation of the bare wording of 14A(1) might suggest it).
# no, you haven’t got it quite right, pbinca. No, I won’t explain in this venue.
There are two requirements to being a citizen upon birth in this Country. It is born within the geographical boundaries AND subject to the full and complete power of the US government. The Framers of the Amendment were clear what that phrase means. It means the parents can’t be citizens of another country, they can’t be under the power of another government, they can’t have allegiance to another sovereign.
Everyone in the Country is under the government’s legal power. Not everyone in the Country is under the government’s full and complete power. That full and complete power is legal and political power. Court rulings say this very thing.
I am certain that there are >= 6 votes in the Supreme Court upholding the exclusive power of Congress under Article I, Section 8 to revise pathways to Citizenship.
When in 1924 Congress overruled 150 years of Supreme Court precedents and former Congresses in giving Native Americans U.S. Citizenship, it wasn’t even challenged in Court.
So, let’s put aside this EO, and work on our majority-Republican Congress to pass Citizenship by Inheritance. The highest Court will uphold the will of the governed. Take the opportunity while we have it!
No, the court will NOT uphold it, because it’s complete nonsense. “Jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment means exactly the same thing as it means in every other law. The only babies born in the USA and not subject to its jurisdiction are those born with diplomatic immunity. If someone must obey US law, and can be arrested if he doesn’t, then he’s subject to US jurisdiction.
# The court will decide in favor of the narrower interpretation for the integrity of the document.
No, it won’t, because there is no doubt about the document’s integrity.
I don’t care about Europe; ius soli is the rule here in the Western Hemisphere. Even John McCain was born a Panamanian, bc Panama retained sovereignty over the Canal Zone.
But, birthright citizenship in the US goes back before the 14th Amendment, back to the common law: in 1844, a New York State court held that Julia Lynch, born in the US to Irish parents temporarily here on business, was a US citizen at birth. Lynch v. Clarke (1844).
But Michael using your logic Julia Lynch wouldn’t have even been able to vote! The nation and the world have changed a bit since 1844 when the country was large, underpopulated and DIDN’T GIVE FREE PHONES, LODGING, HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, FOOD AND EVEN MONTHLY STIPENDS TO ANYONE THAT CAME HERE.
What is next, some founders were immigrants?
If Trump were loyal to his Oath of Office, he would have pursued a constitutional-amendment.
Instead at noon on Inaugural Day, he subverted his loyalty oath, pursuing to do it through Executive Order.
These are subversive activities!
“If Trump were loyal to his Oath of Office…”
Oh stop your caterwauling. Trump’s EO is a legitimate test of the arguments. It will force Congress and SCOTUS to resolve the issue. Hopefully in Trump’s favor and hopefully on an accelerated schedule.
If Congress got off its overfed duff and passed a law supporting Trump’s position that would short circuit some delays in the process. IANAL but it seems as though the constitutionality of both the EO and legislation are joined at the hip.
I sense some serious hand waving here by Professor Turley. Having persuasively made the case that both a drafter and a co-sponsor of the 14th Amendment very much intended the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to be a hard limitation on the Amendment’s scope, he goes on to pretend (hopefully not truly believe) that subsequent decisions and positions have more weight than that original intent. As if SCOTUS has never before made an erroneous decision (U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark) that was later rightfully overturned, in whole, or in part. Those are uncommon, but they do exist:
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/
In addition, there have been decisions such as Buck v. Bell that in effect have been partially overturned or largely disregarded.
Thank you, Number 6.
The lawmakers define the law. Courts are to use that definition when deciding disputes between parties. The Framers of the 14th Amendment defined subject to the jurisdiction as being the full and complete jurisdiction of the US government — legal and political. They said not owing allegiance to another sovereign, not being subject to the jurisdiction of another government.
Neither courts nor Congress can change that.
The idea that SCOTUS can’t be wrong or that they are the final word on anything is nonsense.
The entire argument against the interpretation of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment relies on disconnecting a few crucial words from the rest of the clause, similarly to how some interpret the Second Amendment.
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” is quite clear. It demonstrates that everyone within the borders of the United States is subject to its jurisdiction. This means that the Constitution’s authority applies only within our defined borders; anything beyond them is not subject to constitutional jurisdiction.
Turley also overlooks an important issue that arises from the right’s position. If immigrant aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they cannot be prosecuted for crimes or even formally charged. The Constitution does not exempt immigrants from rights, except for those specifically designated for citizens, such as the right to vote.
Just like any immigrant—regardless of legal status—has the right to free speech and due process, so do those who pay taxes. Interestingly, if immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” they would not be obligated to pay taxes while residing here.
Turley’s attempt to lend constitutional credibility to Trump’s arguments ultimately falls short. He selectively chooses points that support Trump’s flawed reasoning.
When the 14th Amendment was ratified, enslaved individuals were not considered full citizens; they lacked the same rights and privileges as others. The argument that for the 14th Amendment to apply, one parent must be a citizen does not indicate that the parent must be a full-fledged citizen. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment that specifies that one parent must be a citizen for their child to automatically receive citizenship.
Even from originalist and textualist perspectives, Trump’s argument does not hold up. However, we’ve seen that originalists and textualists often abandon their principles when it becomes inconvenient.
“The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’ is quite clear. It demonstrates that everyone within the borders of the United States is subject to its jurisdiction.”
If that phrase is “quite clear,” then why does it need your interpretation to clear it up?
And why didn’t the writers use your words?
“that everyone within the borders of the United States is subject to its jurisdiction.”?
Apparently our chief resident troll has never heard of diplomatic immunity.
If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” just meant born here why the need for the redundancy? The Amendment already states “born in”!!!
Because it excludes those born with diplomatic immunity, as well as those born within Indian tribes that are immune from US jurisdiction (these no longer exist).
Of the thousands who claim to be experts on the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, nobody ever considers that this Amendment did not challenge or repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It imbued that Act with Constitutional force, to end the legal gamesmanship of Southern white supremacists and their defiance of Congress’ authority under Article 1, Section 8 (e.g. by citing the “superior” authority of the 1857 Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision).
That 1866 Act of Congress opened the door to US Citizenship to the emancipated slaves. But, it continued to exclude citizenship for foreign diplomats, foreign aliens, foreign invaders, and Indians-not-taxed.
Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, overruling the 1884 Supreme Court’s Elk v. Wilkins interpretation of the 1868 Citizenship Clause.
Congress passed the 1965 Nationality Act, overruling the 1790 Congress limiting Citizenship to white Europeans.
Do you get it? Congress, not activist Plaintiffs and Judges, has exclusive power under Article I, Section 8 to define pathways to citizenship…and to change these rules for changing times.
The elites will try in every way to convince average people “you have no say over birthplace citizenship”….to steer your attention away from the powers of The People under Article I, Section 8 to define citizenship eligibility via Congress.
Once you buy into the fight hinging on how Courts interpret “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, you’ve given up your powers. Only a fool falls for this head fake.
This is completely wrong.
The 14A overrode the 1866 Act.
And the 1924 Act did not overrule Elk v Wilkins. It simply abolished the category of “Indians not taxed”. Until 1924 there were Indian tribes that were not under US jurisdiction. Their members paid no taxes, did not have to obey US law, and could not be arrested or sued, or summoned to court as witnesses. Therefore, according to the constitution, they were not counted in the census and their children were not born citizens. The 1924 act didn’t change the constitutional situation at all, it simply abolished those tribes. It put all Indians under US jurisdiction; since 1924 they have to pay taxes and obey the law, and can be arrested and imprisoned if they don’t. They can be sued, and they must testify when called. Therefore under the constitution AS IT ALREADY STOOD, they are now counted in the census and are citizens from birth.
That means the only ones now exempt from US law and thus are not citizens from birth are diplomats and their families.
I am not a lawyer, but I find persuasive the argument that children of people who illegally entered the country, and remain here illegally do not fit the test implied by the 1898 Ark Decision. Ark was an America-born citizen of long-term resident Chinese nationals who had both entered the USA, and remained here with the consent of the USA. The decision specified that Ark met the test of being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by dint of his and his parents’ continuous protection from and allegiance to the US. That is not true of parents who entered the US illegally, nor can it logically be inferred regarding children born to them on American soil.
It seems entirely reasonable that Congress would use its authority under Article 5 of the 14th Amendment to clarify a dispute that existed even at the time of adoption of 14A, but which arose in respect to a distinct population in the 20th century. There are other distinct populations now directly affected by Trump’s Executive Order too (e.g., some Dreamers) for whom the State Department should be responsible for defining and even possibly exempting.
If the United States were in a war and foreign soldiers came on our soil, and if a female combatant were pregnant and gave birth on our soil, would her baby be an American?
If a member of the diplomatic corps of any country were stationed here and they or a family member had a baby, does their child become a citizen?
This case will be heard before the Supreme Court. They will read the law’s intent in its full context.
No, both children born to invading armies and those born to diplomats are excluded from the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause. But ALL OTHERS are included. Anyone who has to obey US law and pay US taxes is under its jurisdiction.
An illegal broke the law by entering illegally or by overstaying a visa. This usually gets the person thrown in jail in most countries and deported.
To be a legal citizen in most European countries requires the applicant living legally (visa) and gainfully working for seven years. They must show B1 competency on the language class, successfully completing a civics class and prove that they will contribute to the nation.
I think Milhouse likes to ignore how the Framers of the 14th defined ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’
No, you are simply LYING about how they defined it.
In any case, the people who drafted the amendment are irrelevant. The drafters are not the ones who made it law. Laws do not follow the intentions of those who draft them, or even of those who vote for them. All that matters is what the text actually says, and how those words would have been understood by an ordinary English speaker at the time.
YOU are the liar milly.
Congress framed the amendment, defined that amendment, and the states ratified that definition. The states are the law-makers and they ratified what the Framers’ defined. No one can change that definition.
You’re clearly insane to say that the Framers’ intention is irrelevant. The text is not always clear…the only way to know what the Constitution means is to go the source — just like Jefferson said.
If you discuss the first clause of the 14A you really should begin with the Dred Scott case:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/anchor-babies-dred-scott-and-the-14th-amendment/
That’s really interesting.
The professor writes “Americans support deportations of immigrants with violent criminal records and almost half support mass deportation of all undocumented persons.”
I find the politically correct phrase “undocumented persons” very interesting. I guess if I walk into a bank and rob it, I am just making an “undocumented” withdrawal?
Excellent!
did you get your inspiration from someone who posted a few days ago about trans being “undocumented genders?”
They are invaders. Doesn’t matter why they have entered. If a person enters the Country without permission, they are invading the Country.
Just as a person who breaks into another’s home are invading that person’s home.
California grants driver licenses to illegal aliens at which point they certainly aren’t “undocumented”; they’re illegal immigrants.
Professor Turley,
You clearly did not read the full legislative history of the congressional debate over the wording of the amendment. Rather it looks like you used the same cherrypicked lines from disgraced lawyer John Eastman.
The clause was meant to only include those classes of persons who cannot be sued. Trumbull says this very clearly by providing the example of the Navajo Indians, many of whom at the time were immune from suit like foreign diplomats.
Another Senator suggested specifically adding an exclusion for Indians not subject to taxation, but the consensus rejected that because they thought it would be redundant.
Thus, as illegal aliens can be sued/prosecuted – look at the Laken Riley Act – they are not covered by the clause.
More problematic however is your tacit acceptance of using Executive Orders as an extension of the bully pulpit. That is not how the Founders contemplated the proper use or this power. It makes a mockery of the rule of law.
Isn’t it the term “Anchor Babies” ?
I doubt SCOTUS will allow more than a very limited exception to birthright citizenship. But Congress does have an easy way to fix the real problem. Simply prohibit any person, who is a citizen by birth, from sponsoring relatives for immigration purposes, if that citizen was born to illegal aliens or temporary visitors, and also require DHS to maintain an accurate database of such births. Foreigners won’t go through the trouble of birth tourism if they can’t derive a direct benefit from it.
The Magnificent Orange Bastid!
The Trump argument might sound like that of John C. Calhoun.
“I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race — the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race.”
Enigma, things change over 100 years time. We have the Nationality Act of 1965, which officially put an end to racial-ethnic preferences in Immigration and Naturalization. Trump is solidly behind that post-racial policy. Where we seek reform is ending indiscriminate birthplace citizenship, which splits a family by status, and enables the grift of selling US Citizenships as a commodity overseas.
What we’re seeking is eminently reasonable….following the success model of Australia, Italy, France, UK and Ireland…all of whom phased out birthplace citizenship (jus solis) in favor or citizenship inheritance (jus sanguinis).
Look at the racial-ethnic makeup of those 5 countries — that should soundly refute the idea that citizenship reform worked to rekindle white supremacy. It has had just the opposite effect, uniting all the races under a common civic nationality.
You are speaking of the same man who referred to all of Africa and most of Central America as “shithole countries” and wondered why we couldn’t get more immigrants from places like Denmark. I give you credit that this is the first time I’ve ever seen Trump and post-racial in the same paragraph before.
I agree that America has long been selling American citizenships, then there are those they give away to models like Melania. The racial-ethnic make-up of a country isn’t an indicator of white supremacy. Look at South Africa where white people still control most of the land and resources. Trump is right now cutting funding because of unproven rumors about Black people killing white farmers. Elon Musk is coming to the rescue of his homeland. In America, white people will me a minority by 2045 and are using every means necessary to suppress votes and maintain power.
There is a legal means to eliminate birthright citizenship via Constitutional Amendment. Turley is heralding this attempt to bypass the Constitution as a brilliant move. There was a time I could disagree with Turley and still respect him. That time is long gone as he’s sold his soul to Fox News.
Who cares what rubbish Trump spews from his fetid, paranoid noggin? It’s up to CONGRESS to fix these problems by clarifying the fine points of Citizenship eligibility. If we can get Congress to switch the country in an orderly fashion over to jus sanguinis (Citizenship Inheritance), and providing visa permissions to babies of visa-holding parents, Trump will sign the bill. And SCOTUS will be delighted to Congress taking up its proper role under Article I, Section 8.
Question tho. While Congress can pass what it wants, the real issue is the meaning of the jurisdiction clause? If the Court rules that jus solis applies without limitation (either now or in the future), then the Act will be null and void.
And I think that the Court is very protective of it’s role as set out in Marbury
Most of those countries ARE sh*tholes. That’s a simple fact, and it’s not wrong to point it out.
“The Trump argument might sound like . . .”
Using the expression “Black Friday” might be racist.
Math could be racist.
Merit probably is racist.
Eating vanilla ice cream possibly means you’re a member of the KKK.
Tribalists smear race everywhere. Then claim to want a color blind society.
Go figure.
“Eating vanilla ice cream possibly means you’re a member of the KKK.”
I’m diabetic. I need to eat plain yogurt to affirm my Klan membership…
I love that JT is taking up this issue. There is a politically shrewd way to obtain reform, not the one cited above (having activist Plaintiffs and Judges decide policy). We’re sick of that, and so are 6 of the 9 SCOTUS Justices.
The place to start reform is Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Naturalization means “pathways to citizenship”. Congress is given exclusive power in this area, certainly over the States, and over the other 2 federal branches. The Exec enforces these rules, and the Judiciary applies them to ambiguous edge cases.
A perfect example of Congress properly exercising this power was giving Native Americans U.S. Citizenship in 1924 by statute, overruling the 1884 Supreme Court’s exclusionary interpretation of the 1868 Citizenship Clause (Elk v. Wilkins).
When the Indian Citizenship Act was passed, it didn’t even get challenged in the Courts. There goes the argument that Citizenship Reform in 2025 requires a Constitutional Amendment or SCOTUS decision.
Clearly, the Founders mustered wisdom and foresight in giving these powers to The People through their elected Congress. This accommodates changes in circumstances over time, and changing ideas about pathways to citizenship:
• 1790: only white Europeans need apply
• 1866: emancipated slaves born here added (but not foreign diplomats, foreign aliens, invaders or Indians-not-taxed)
• 1924: Native Americans added (but they can retain tribal citizenship)
• 1965: Racial/Ethnic preferences in Immigration and Naturalization repealed
These historical reforms show how it is Congress (not the Courts through casework) who holds the power of policy.
We The People hold this power. And, this paves the way to pass The Citizenship Inheritance Act of 2025.
Pbinca-well said. I think your points are all correct and I agree with you.I think the 1982 decision giving illegal aliens the rights to use our schools and us pay for them was wrongly decided and it was by a court that got a lot of things wrong. It has nothing to do with Race in spite of the democratic mouthpieces here who make everything about race.
I am a white American but I have no desire to see that many current Europeans here or on the way. The rest of the world is far more vibrant and energetic. I’ll take legal immigrants from almost anywhere else except Europe. All of my ancestors came from Europe but they were a whole different group of people compared to what inhabits Europe these days.
Heck, I’d be happy if we just enforced voting laws that prevented non-citizens from voting in United States elections. Anyone, I mean anyone, can vote in California and other blue states. (Check out the 100s of Youtube videos, and see for yourself.) If this birthright scam can be fixed, all the better! Let’s have a country for a change.
So, YouTube vids are now evidence of illegals voting?
Wally Wally Wally
California and other Democratic chithole States allow illegals to vote in their local elections. They just aren’t allowed to vote in federal elections.
I read the DOJ response to the motion for a preliminary injunction on the EO, and was impressed by the argument on the jurisdiction clause, which is the key to the whole issue. I have read materials that suggest jus solis is the standing rule in the US and Canada without limitation (i.e., regardless of legal status); however, Congressional debate suggests otherwise. Regardless, this will end up with SCOTUS. Who really knows what they will say
Link to the response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943.84.0.pdf