Below is my column in the Hill on the expected reaffirmation of birthright citizenship by the Supreme Court after the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara. The question raised in the column is whether such a decision should be the final word on the subject or whether we should have a national debate on a possible new citizenship amendment. Some countries among the minority recognizing birthright citizenship had such debates and decided to reject it. Polls indicate that most Americans support birthright citizenship. If so, an amendment would obviously fail. However, it may be time to have such a national debate.
Here is the column:
“Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
Those words from Chief Justice John Roberts during this week’s oral arguments signaled that the conservative justices are unlikely to reject birthright citizenship. Of course, nothing is certain until this summer when the Court issues its opinion in Trump v. Barbara. However, we need to consider the need for a 28th Amendment to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship.
As some of us stressed before the oral argument, the odds were against the administration prevailing in the case, given more than a century of countervailing precedent. There are good-faith arguments against reading the 14th Amendment as supporting citizenship for any child born in this country. It is doubtful that the drafters of the 14th Amendment could have envisioned millions of births to illegal aliens. They surely did not imagine foreigners coming to this country for the purpose of giving birth — or even, without ever entering the U.S., contracting multiple U.S. residents to carry babies to term for them as surrogates.
The historical record is highly conflicted. Some drafters expressly denied that they intended for birthright citizenship to be covered by the 14th Amendment.
The rampant abuse in this country and the widespread rejection of birthright citizenship by other countries (including some that once followed it) did not seem to impress the conservative justices. Roberts’s statement was in response to Solicitor General John Sauer’s argument that “We’re in a new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”
Although President Trump has lashed out with personal attacks on the conservative justices as “disloyal” and “stupid,” they are doing what they are bound by oath to do: apply the law without political favor or interest. I expect most of the justices agree with the vast majority of countries — and the president — that birthright citizenship is a foolish and harmful policy. But they are not legislators; they are jurists tasked with constitutional interpretation.
Trump appointed three principled justices to the court. To their (and to his) credit, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett have proven that they are driven by the underlying law, not the ultimate outcome of cases.
For conservatives, constitutional interpretations offer less leeway than their liberal colleagues or believers in the “living constitution.” If you believe in continually updating the Constitution from the bench to meet contemporary demands, constitutional language is barely a speed bump on your path to the preferred outcome in any given case.
In my Supreme Court class, I call this a “default case” in which justices tend to run home. When a record or the law is uncertain, conservative justices tend to avoid expansive, new interpretations. That was precisely what Trump said he wanted in nominees.
These justices are not being “disloyal” to him, but rather loyal to what they view as the meaning of the Constitution. I have at times disagreed with their view of the law, but I have never questioned their integrity.
None of this means we should accept the expected outcome in this case as the final word on birthright citizenship. Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”
The final word actually rests with the public. We can amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship. There is no more important question in a republic than the definition of citizenship.
We are becoming a virtual mockery as we watch millions game the birthright citizenship system. China alone has hundreds of tourism firms that have made fortunes in arranging for Chinese citizens to come to U.S. territory to give birth and then return home.
No republic can last without controlling its borders and the qualifications for citizenship. We have allowed U.S. citizenship to become a mere commodity for the most affluent or unscrupulous among us.
The combination of open borders and open-ended citizenship can be an existential threat to this Republic. It is not that we cannot absorb millions of births, but rather that no republic can retain its core identity without more clearly defining and controlling the meaning of being a citizen.
The U.S. is and will remain a nation of immigrants. We welcome lawful immigrants who come to this country to embrace our values and our common identity. But being a nation of immigrants does not mean that we are a nation of chumps.
In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the foundations of our republic and the world’s fascination with it. After our Revolution, one leading Frenchman known as John Hector St. John wrote a popular book that asked: “What then is the American, this new man?”
The answer to that question was obvious at our founding. We were the world’s first true enlightenment revolution — a republic founded on natural rights that came not from the government but God. We did not have a shared bond of land, culture, religion, or history. We were a people founded on a legacy of ideas; a people joined by common articles of faith in natural, unalienable rights.
The question is whether we can answer St. John’s challenge today. “What then is this American” if citizenship can be based on as little as a tourist visa or an illegal crossing?
There would be no better time to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship than the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. Roberts is correct: “It is the same Constitution” that created this republic, but we are the same people vested with the responsibility, as Benjamin Franklin put it, “to keep it.”
It is time to reclaim both the Constitution and our common identity. As a free people joined by a common faith in natural rights, it is our own birthright.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The 14th was specificly for slaves.
The native Americans were not given citizenship for about 50 years.
Clear to me
No it was not.
yes. tds.
Just as modern debates often focus on specific immigrant groups, 19th-century opponents targeted specific ethnic minorities. The irony that seems to escape Turley is that his own ancestors faced the same animosity from “real Americans” who saw Irish and German Catholics as undesirables. Turley benefitted from the 14th amendment. But he now supports repealing birthright citizenship because others like his own ancestors will be subject to the guarantee of citizenship that those who came before him and made it possible for his family to establish roots here.
Keep in mind that it was reconstruction era republicans who authored the 14th amendment.
clown, I suspect Turley’s ancestors did not enter this country illegally. and if they came here legally, in line and processed, then birthright citizenship would STILL cover their children. Did your mother feed you sour milk? Get a life, georgie.
You suspect? Turley’s great grandparents came from Ireland. His mother’s side came from Sicily Italy.
At the time Irish Catholics and Italians were subject to the same animosity many have towards Hispanics and other foreign minorities that exist now. Whether Turley’s great great grand parents got here legally or illegally their offspring benefitted from the 14th amendment. Turley supports getting rid of the constitutional right that led to HIS own existence. He wants to deny others the right his own family enjoyed.
” He wants to deny others the right his own family enjoyed.”
That is typical MAGA.
Danny, you really don’t have anything to offer do you. not even useful. Typical leftard can’t accept he’s on the wrong side.
X, what a stupid take. explain the difference between legal and illegal immigration einstein.
Ever hear of sourcing, citing? No credibility here. Makes it all up.
Turley talks about his mothers Sicilian ancestry and his fathers Irish ancestry quite a bit. It’s not hard to figure it out when Turley tells you.
You know NOTHING about his ancestry, so shut up and start your own blog in your continuous fight to discredit him. YOU are the one who reminds people to discuss issues but multiple times each day you come here to criticize HIM not the issue, first-class no-nothing but-AI-clown!
Turley is fair game. He has openly talked about his roots and where his family comes from. It’s no mystery.
Because he’s a big fan of free speech and the 1st amendment he’s absolutely fair game to be criticized, mocked, ridiculed, and/or rebutted. Just as much as I am fair game when i post a comment or opinion.
Good. Here’s my comment and opinion. You are a worthless fool with artificial intelligence, who lacks the social contacts and communications of others (the proper forum for criticism of Turley) such that you are forced to get your feedback an spend your time by coming here everyday and criticising Turley.
You are like a little child who provokes to get attention. Your vocabulary and tactics indicate a person who does not think on his own but rather learns and imitates others whom he is impressed with. The only time you get any (singular) upvotes is when someone else has a beef against Olly, Farmer, Lin, Hullbobby and USES YOU to get back at them, but you are too dull-witted to appreciate that.
You hand-select commenters who say meaningful things and focus on discrediting them-to your failure. When someone takes you down, you disappear for a few hours or days, then try again. You are a laughable, pitiable nobody seeking validation or pay or both. I doubt anyone here has any respect for you. Most laugh. You spend HOURS here which tells us much. and BTW, I am using an artificial service provider shared with others, so just cut your losses and move on to somewhere that appreciates you. Maybe the Boy Scouts’ Boys’ Life or Scout Life publication? Or did they laugh at you too?
The difference, X, is that we support immigration which is good for the USA and you support illegal immigration which is bad for us. Say it. I dare you to say it.
They’ve been legislating since Marbury vs Madison so …
President Trump has long regretted that he followed the recommendations of ‘sleazebag’ Leonard Leo (Federalist Society). High-profile trial lawyer Robert Barnes wrote on zwitter before her nomination that ACB “would be a desaster.
The Supreme Court could do what’s best for the country by striking down the President’s EO, but in the process, provide a way for congressional legislation to achieve essentially the same thing. I agree with the readers who say a constitutional amendment is beyond reach at this time. The nation is just too divided for such an amendment to be approved. For example, Congress might begin by defining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in modern terminology, and this, in turn, could rule out illegal aliens and birth tourism. The latter is nothing short of a retirement program for elderly parents of children born in the US while their parents were on a tourist visa. There’s no need to amend the Constitution if we properly define the ambiguous terms of the 14th Amendment. Congress can and must do this. Eighty percent of the people want it done.
It isn’t ambiguous.
OK, explain what the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means? Maybe you can do what the SCOTUS was unable to do last week.
Ummm, wait for the decision? We are expecting them to answer that very question with their decision. Do you know how the American system works? Your comment reveals your ignorance. You must admit “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was included for some purpose. Please tell us what it means. Please take the same position as KBJ.
OK, It means that you submit to the laws of our country and agree to follow them, including our immigration laws. People who submit themselves to our laws who wish to become an American citizen can apply. THEN WE get to decide to let you in or not. You better have been a good boy. If you don’t submit to our jusidiction, how can you be subject to it? You’re not! by your own choice, because you could have followed the laws. Citizens follow laws and have all the rights. Criminal don’t and lose rights. Very simple but not what you wanted to hear. Sorry commie!
The Federalist has an interesting editorial claiming that the clear evidence of intent regarding the citizenship cluse of the 14th A lies not in the word “jurisdiction”, but in the word “reside”. I find the contention plausible, if not compelling.
This Word In The 14th Amendment Bans Birthright Citizenship, And It’s Not ‘Jurisdiction’
https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/06/this-word-in-the-14th-amendment-bans-birthright-citizenship-and-its-not-jurisdiction/
The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause contains a word that definitively excludes birth tourists: ‘reside.’
Where There is a Will, There is a Way!
1. It goes without saying That Congress doesn*t pass any law restricting birthright citizenship.
2. President Trump is know for action, not for endless talks without any prospect of reasonable results.
3. Jusrice Alito, (invoking late Justice Scalias analogy) has plausibly justified how a different decision also complies with our Constitution_ “We the People of the United States, …”
Citing the possibility of correcting this problem via Constitutional Amendment is nothing but empty, jaw-flapping rhetoric without discussion of *how* such an Amendment might come to pass. Turley knows full well, as should anyone with even half a brain who regularly reads his opinions, that there is absolutely zero chance for the approval of an Amendment curtailing birthright citizenship by means of the required 2/3 majority of each House of Congress followed by ratification by the Legislatures of 3/4 of the States. The one and only chance for such an initiative to succeed would be at a Convention of States. Odds are against in that venue as well, but at least the population leveraged advantage of the blue states is vastly reduced.
A convention of the states still needs 3/4 of the states to ratify.
“A convention of the states still needs 3/4 of the states to ratify.”
My comment acknowledged that. What it eliminates is the 2/3 majority requirement in the House, where the number of Representatives (and votes) afforded to each state is contingent on the population of that State. That affords disproportionate clout to overpopulated blue states. Convening the Convention of States requires resolutions by 34 states. 20 states have already so resolved, another 3 states have seen the resolution passed by one chamber. Resolutions passed by the Convention require approval by 38 states to be binding. Elimination of the requirement for 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate for each proposed Amendment, in favor of approval by 14 additional states to get the ball rolling on a CoS imo reduces the leverage of blue states tremendously. Who knows, once we approach the 34 states needed call to a convention, maybe the idiot jerks now in Washington will see the writing on the wall clearly enough to take care of at least some of the Peoples’ business that is supposed to be their entire raison d’être.
The far bigger issue is Trump doesn’t respect any laws and has no loyalty to his Oath of Office.
Why amend it since he ignores laws and loyalty anyway? Trump perceives himself as the law, not a follower of laws.
More disturbing, Trump doesn’t seem to put the nation or American people first in his law breaking. Tariff-taxes and inflated crude oil prices harm working class Americans and only benefit billionaires.
Unlike Ronald Reagan, Trump is not bending or breaking laws to benefit the American people.
That was me, I Don Wannutono
If the clear text and meaning of the 14th Amendment is meaningless – acting as no real restraint on any president – couldn’t any future president then attack the ambiguity of 2nd Amendment gun rights? Take away gun rights in 1 day bypassing the constitutional-amendment process.
Couldn’t you also argue that Trump’s immigration practices violate the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (cruel & unusual punishment)? Since words and laws have no meaning to Trump.
If Trump alone (without Congress or state legislatures) can illegally amend the 14th Amendment through Executive Order, instead of the legal path of constitutional-amendment.
Couldn’t any president take away voting rights from women (about 50% of the USA population) in 1 day through Executive Order? Since words and laws have no meaning to Trump.
Couldn’t any future president outlaw Baptists, Catholics or the Jewish faith, since the 1st Amendment has no meaning or weight of law? One of the primary motivations for breaking away from Europe and starting the Revolutionary War.
Well said. As a people, we cannot pick and choose which amendments we want to follow. Also, I personally would rather use a new constitutional amendment to limit terms of Senators and Representatives.
Cruel and unusual, nah, that was more drawing and quartering, hooking intestines to a hook tied to ropes and tied to a horse and have the horse run, burning at the stake- that kind of thing.
While we are at it, can we do one for congressional term limits, please? And make Congress follow the rules they set for us? And require a balanced budget?
This is right in the lane I’ve been in for a long time. JT is asking the core question of “what is citizenship and who counts,” and I’ve been arguing the core companion question: “how do we form the kind of citizens who can actually self‑govern?” The definition and the formation rise and fall together. If we keep handing out birthright citizenship while ignoring citizen formation, we’re not just expanding the experiment, we’re diluting it, and in some cases poisoning the very mix a constitutional republic needs to survive.
Agreed. CGS
Talk about a white supremacist… Diluting? Poisoning? What KKK chapter are in in?
Are you still in your basement lambasting everything and everyone with a rational that is different than yours? Go for a long walk occasionally.
Olly, If citizenship is conditional on “proper formation” or “self-governing ability,” who gets to define what a “good” citizen looks like? Historically, these types of “standards” (like literacy tests or property requirements) were used specifically to disenfranchise marginalized groups, including Black Americans and immigrants.
The 14th Amendment was designed to move away from subjective “tests” of worthiness and replace them with an objective, geographic fact: birth on U.S. soil.
Your logic assumes that “native-born” citizens with multi-generational roots are automatically better “formed” than the children of immigrants. There is no data to suggest that children of immigrants are less capable of self-governance; in fact, many studies show higher rates of civic participation and military service among first-generation Americans.
If “citizen formation” is the problem, the solution lies in education and civic engagement for all children born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ status. Stripping legal status from a child doesn’t “fix” their formation; it simply creates a permanent underclass that is barred from participating in the very self-governance you claim to value.
Your “closed-system” view of democracy mirrors the arguments of the 1850s Nativist (Know-Nothing) Party. They argued that certain “un-formed” groups (then Irish and German Catholics) would “poison” the American experiment. Which are ironically now arguing for the very thing others before them wanted, prohibiting Catholics and Irish immigrants. It’s a recurring theme among racists and bigots.
The American experiment’s unique strength is its absorptive power. The Founders and the Reconstruction-era authors of the 14th Amendment realized that a republic is most stable when everyone within its borders is “subject to its jurisdiction” and invested in its success through the stake of citizenship.
X, you’re loading a lot into my words that I didn’t say and don’t believe.
I’m not arguing that some race, religion, or “old stock” American is naturally better than anybody else. I’m saying the same thing the Founders and a lot of civics teachers say in more polite language: a constitutional republic assumes a certain kind of citizen who has been formed to handle self‑government. That is not a bloodline issue. It’s a formation issue.
A few quick points:
Who defines a “good citizen”?
I’m not talking about some federal loyalty board handing out scorecards or bringing back literacy tests. I’m saying the whole system already rests on an implied standard: people who know something about our history, can think for themselves, and take responsibility for more than their own feelings. That’s what my “citizen formation” language is trying to put a spotlight on, not to give the state a new weapon, but to call out how badly it is doing that basic job.
I’m not pitting natives against immigrants.
You’re reading that in, but it’s not there. I don’t believe native‑born, multi‑generational Americans are automatically “better formed” than the kids of immigrants. Half the time, first‑generation families are more serious about work, family, faith, and service than people who have been here for five generations. My problem is not “children of immigrants,” it’s a culture and an education system that are failing to form anyone for self‑government.
Birthright vs. formation.
You’re right about one thing: taking legal status away from a kid doesn’t “fix” how they’re formed. My point is almost the reverse. Treating citizenship as nothing more than a geographic fact and then walking away from formation is a slow‑motion way to hollow out the experiment. I want us to talk honestly about what we owe every kid growing up under our flag in terms of civic knowledge, habits, and responsibility. If we refuse to have that conversation, the birthright debate is just a fight over labels.
On “Know‑Nothing” and racism analogies.
The Know‑Nothings wanted to keep whole categories of people out because of who they were. I’m not arguing that any group is unfit by nature. I’m saying whoever we recognize as citizens, native‑born or immigrant, we need to take seriously the work of forming them for the kind of government we claim to have. If you hear the word “formation” and jump straight to “racist,” that says more about how poisoned our discourse is than about what I’m actually saying.
Absorptive power cuts both ways.
I agree America has a unique ability to absorb people from everywhere. But absorption is not magic. It works when there’s a real effort to transmit a common civic language and set of expectations. If we stop doing that, the “absorptive power” you’re celebrating turns into a kind of drift, where nobody is quite sure what it means to be an American beyond holding the paperwork.
You and I might disagree on how the 14th Amendment should be read in this moment, and that’s fine. But at least argue with what I’m actually saying: that a republic lives or dies on the kind of citizens it forms, not just the paperwork it hands out.
Olly, Bringing up “formation” only when the topic is “limiting the number of citizens” reveals the true intent. It is a “polite” way of saying that some people (the children of non-citizens) aren’t worth the “effort” of formation, so we should just stop giving them the “paperwork.”
Suggesting we should “talk honestly” about these habits in the context of a birthright debate is an attempt to re-introduce subjectivity into a vested right. Once you allow “civic habits” to be a prerequisite for the “label” of citizenship, you have fundamentally destroyed the concept of a “right” and turned it into a “privilege” granted by the state.
If the education system is “failing to form anyone,” as you claim, then stripping citizenship from children of immigrants does zero to fix the education of the “old stock” or native-born citizens who are also being “badly formed.” By linking birthright citizenship to a general “cultural decline,” you are scapegoating a specific legal right for a universal social problem.
You are conflating Civic Virtue with Legal Standing. We can agree that American civics education needs improvement for every child. But using ‘bad schools’ as a reason to ‘re-interpret’ the 14th Amendment is like saying we should stop recognizing the right to a fair trial because some lawyers are bad. One is a social challenge; the other is a foundational pillar of the Constitution. Why is your ‘solution’ to a national education problem specifically targeting the legal rights of children of immigrants?
X, you keep saying I’m “bringing up formation only when the topic is limiting citizens,” but that’s backwards. I’ve been beating the citizen‑formation drum for years no matter who we’re talking about. I’m not saying some kids “aren’t worth the effort.” I’m saying the system is barely forming any of them for self‑government, native‑born or children of immigrants.
I’m not trying to turn citizenship into a test or a privilege the state can yank. Legal standing and civic virtue are different things. I get that. What I am saying is that if we pretend citizenship is just a birth certificate and never talk about the habits and knowledge that make self‑government possible, we’re kidding ourselves about what this “right” even attaches to in the real world.
You keep framing this as “stripping citizenship from children of immigrants.” I’m not writing a statute here. I’m raising a deeper question: if we agree every child born here is a citizen, what are we doing to form them for the job that comes with that status? If the honest answer is “not much,” then we’re arguing over the label while the substance of the experiment leaks out the bottom.
If you want to keep birthright citizenship exactly as it is, fine, make that case. But don’t pretend that asking what kind of citizens we’re actually producing is the same thing as resurrecting literacy tests or saying some group “isn’t worth it.” That’s not what I’m arguing, and repeating it doesn’t make it true.
I hear you—you’re worried about the ‘legal’ definition, and I’m worried about the ‘functional’ reality. A birth certificate makes you a citizen on paper, but it doesn’t automatically give you the tools to sustain a republic. We can keep the legal definition exactly where it is, but we still have to answer your question: What is the ‘substance’ of the experiment if the citizens themselves aren’t being formed for the job? We’re arguing over who gets the keys to a car that nobody knows how to drive.
Yeah, that is basically what I have been trying to say. We can fight all day over the legal keys, but if nobody knows how to drive the car, the whole experiment is running on fumes. Birthright or no birthright, a birth certificate does not form a citizen. If we keep handing out keys without teaching people how to handle the machine, the wreck is built into the design.
Olly, The “car” (the nation) is actually powered by everyone legally in it, regardless of their “driving” skill. Do you agree? Denying the “keys” (legal rights) to those born here doesn’t stop the car; it creates a class of people who are in the car but have no legal protection or responsibility, potentially making the “wreck” more likely.
So the solution is education. But, republicans have been attacking public education for decades. They are stifling citizen formation. They want to determine by some arbitrary standard who qualifies as a citizen.
I do not buy the story that “Republicans attacking public education” is what hollowed out citizen formation. Public education has been failing this country on basic academics and on civics for a long time, under both parties. The Nation’s Report Card shows decades of flat or falling scores in reading, math, and especially history and civics, with big chunks of students now below even the “basic” level. And serious civics has been quietly squeezed out of the schedule since the 1960s, as multiple studies have documented.
At the same time, a lot of schools have had plenty of room for highly politicized projects and frameworks, whether it is the 1619 Project or a rotating set of DEI initiatives, but not much time for forming kids in the nuts and bolts of self‑government. That is not a uniquely “Republican” failure, that is a system failure. I am fine keeping the legal keys where they are. What I am not fine with is pretending that handing out keys without teaching anybody how to drive is okay, as long as we can blame one party for the wreck.
“X, you’re loading a lot into my words that I didn’t say and don’t believe.”
that is typical of X. He is in his own head and we really are figments of his imagination. he should be out looking for a ledge.
Birthright citizenship are the children of naturalized citizens after the constitution was established. Loyalists were run out of town.
As I commented previously: I have often wondered why the federal government doesn’t prevent aliens, whom it has no “jurisdiction” over, from removing newborn citizens from the constitutional protections afforded them in the US without “due process of law?” Why amend when all one has to do is interpret more fully? Now, based upon eighty-two years of citizenship, I’d like to add to that, if we were to amend the constitution it should be to require that only immigrants from sovereign nations that have had our constitutional form of government for at least a generation be allowed citizenship. Why just change our laws when we could change the world, hopefully for the better? Charles G. Shaver
Professor Turley is correct. We can no permit the rest of the world to perceive us as chumps. They view us as credulous and susceptible to bribes and, in many cases, they are correct. The extant generation is without conflict. They have been raised in prosperity and protection. I am among them. But the principles of contract have to become controlling. The deceit and mendacity of the political actors of other nations, acting through their children, must produce strong and convincing evidence that they will comport themselves to the requirements of the law. Foreign citizens view us as chumps and they need to be corrected. The answer to automatic citizenship should be one that is presented with multiple conditions so that the integrity of the word “citizen” is preserved. This is not to reject the well meaning. It is to uncover them. the problem is how to segregate them from the mendacious. Only provable actions can do that. When it comes to the law, you are what you do, but you do what you know. We need to find out what people know and will consequently pursue in making determinations of those who are well meaning. Children have no such capacity. Some adults engage in mendacity. How to ferret out the mendacious. How does a child become qualified for citizenship when it is in the throws of immaturity? Long term conditions seems to be the answer, but under the tutelage of whom? Now is when the parents establish the foundations for their continued protection. Now is when they lay the foundations for the benefits of “citizenship”.
“The answer to automatic citizenship should be one that is presented with multiple conditions so that the *integrity of the word “citizen”* is preserved.” (emphasis added)
Excellent point.
The conditions for birthright citizenship should be the same as for any type of citizenship:
If the attempt includes fraud or deceit, then no citizenship. If fraud is proven after the fact, then citizenship is revoked. “Birthright tourism” is a fraud. 14A was never intended to sanction such fraud.
What I don’t understand is why congress cannot pass a law making such fraud a crime.
I believe that in other times, congress could have passed a reasonable law making birth tourism a fraud. However in today’s world of partisan politics there is no way that law, let alone any other law, regarding immigration is going to get past.
On a side note, I also read the article in the Federalist that was mentioned by @I. Don Wannutono at 09:45, in which they pointed out the word “reside”. If the justices look at the entire amendment, will they also see the word reside and take it into consideration? Or will they just stop at the words presented as the issue?
“What I don’t understand is why congress cannot pass a law making such fraud a crime.”
It’s the liberals in government who want open borders which is a way to get more people in our country who will vote for them.
The court overturned 50 years of precedent with the abortion ruling. Let’s go for 100 years.
Meanwhile, the House, the Senate, and Trump should get busy passing a spate of legislation banning pregnant tourists. If you test pregnant at the border you sign a citizenship waiver in the event that you give birth here. Or better yet, you are simply denied entry and turned back. Do your jobs.
“If you test pregnant at the border you sign a citizenship waiver in the event that you give birth here. Or better yet, you are simply denied entry and turned back. ”
The latter is the correct alternative. Otherwise you invite all manner of litigation over whether the parent have the right to forfeit a citizenship entitlement on behalf of their unborn child.
A man and a woman from Iran enter the United States illegally with a plan to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Before they can do so, they get arrested and thrown in prison, but not before she becomes pregnant. Did anyone who voted for or supported the 14th amendment believe it was intended to confer citizenship on the child of these criminals?
@ Barnum, if he couple promises to register the illegal baby Democrat they’d probably be OK.
The Statue of Liberty didn’t exist in 1868. Nor did Iran.
non sequitur from non compos mentis
Anon is pissed off again.
“Did anyone who voted for or supported the 14th amendment believe it was intended to confer citizenship on the child of these criminals?”
Yes, of course they did. Having criminals as parents has zero bearing on if you are a citizen or not by birth. Civilized nations do not put upon children the sins of their parents.
It’s funny how the ACLU and others on the left see no qualifications in the statement “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but somehow find nothing but qualifications in the statement “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I hope people attacking the 2A as being anachronistic because there were no AR-15s when it was written (including, ironically, the ACLU) are as clear as Chief Justice Roberts when he said “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”
The ACLU and every other group sees that phrase to mean to exclude the children of diplomats, Indians living as a sovereign nation, and actual invading armies.
Polls are not quite what they once were and different poll results are often determined by who is doing the polling. There might be constraints that do limit the birthright citizenship in certain different circumstances and a constitutional admendment might be successful in expanding some of the constraints. But I simply don’t know what the people as a whole would agree to. There might be means of considering a national poll state by state with a variety of different options listed and then use that result to consider an amendment if it looks like any options are likely to be successful.
The birth mills might be attacked legally by attacking them as being more similar to foreign agents, and not under the control of US Jurisdiction. I think a good attorney might make a viable case if it has not been made before. Especially since the sole purpose is to bypass naturalization. In other words you attack by small cuts rather than a simple large slash.
I agree it needs to be discussed and possibly voted on.
How can you possibly say that about polls considering the technology and the science at hand today?
You don’t know hat you’re saying, its 2026 not 1899.
Intent and legislative history are irrelevant to interpretation of a law. It is the written words that make up the enacted law that are controlling.
Otherwise every written law could be second guessed by just saying “Yeah, that’s the way the law is written, but what did they really mean?”
One word: Precedence.
Lotsa luck with that.