Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Constitution Day event at James Madison University about “Rage and the Republic.” and various constitutional issues. During the event, organized by the James Madison Center on Civic Engagement, one student asked me what I would change about the U.S. Constitution. I said that I would amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, as have other nations who once followed this ill-considered practice. Well, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kentucky) has wasted no time. He just reintroduced his bill to ban birthright citizenship.
I have previously written about the possible need for such an amendment after the decision in Trump v. Barbara.
With that decision, the matter now rests not with the court but with the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.
Most countries in the world reject this controversial policy. Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizenship 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.
Various countries that once followed the practice later amended their constitutions or laws to get rid of it. That is what would need to be done with a 28th amendment.
It is time that we have a civil and substantive debate over birthright citizenship in the United States. Given that the states are Democratic-controlled, it is unlikely that an amendment would pass; as noted, we have never been given this decision at the national level. Even with the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, there were differing views on the meaning of the critical line: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.
Here is the language of the amendment:
JOINT RESOLUTIONProposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect United States citizenship.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
“article —“Section 1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ only in accordance with section 2.
“Section 2. A person born in the United States may only be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
“(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
“(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
“(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.
“Section 3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation.”
Actually, many countries DO have birthright citizenship, including Canada and Mexico as well as most other countries in the Americas.
MANY?? WOW Canada and Mexico!! And? Many of them send them to the U.S. to become citizens here.
Sam, many of the countries with birthright citizenship LIMIT that to those born to parents WHO HAVE LEGAL STATUS IN THAT COUNTRY.
Mexico considers illegal aliens from Mexico in the U.S. to be “subject to the FULL jurisdiciton of Mexico.”
Mexico and its hispanic allies are conducting a “Reconquista” of the American Southwest and you and your ilk support that invasion and conquest.
It’s past time you realized who the invading and conquering enemies are.
“Let Man be Noble, Helpful and Good!” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: “The Devine”, composed in 1783)
Anyone who thinks this amendment has a realistic chance of passing is out of touch with political reality.
OT
AI—Artificial Intelligence
Congress has absolutely NO power to regulate the technology and software industry per Article 1, Section 8.
The technology and software industry in 1789 would have been equivalent to the precision-manufacturing and scientific-instrument industry.
Article I, Section 8, makes no mention of regulating that sector or any similar sector.
Any attempt to regulate AI would be irrefutably unconstitutional, understanding that the Constitution limits and restricts government while providing maximal freedom to individuals.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Democrats, the party of national suicide, want America to look Cairo and Calcutta, so no Amendment.
If the Right-of-Blood (jus sanguinis) and the Right-of-soil (jus soli) were a strict Tax Issue, things would sift out quickly.
If:
Right-of-Blood (jus sanguinis) is Not Taxed*
Right-of-soil (jus soli) Taxed*
*:
Individual Income Tax
Payroll Tax (FICA)
Self-Employment Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Capital Gains Tax
Estate and Inheritance Taxes
Then a good percentage of People and their Associated Business (pass through taxes) would guide them to the more favorable Tax Safe haven to establish Citizenship.
This because many Immigrants establish ‘Residency or Work Visa” buy setting up a business front of $150,000 and use it to anchor in Family Members whom eventually become Naturalized Citizens (a Taxable Citizenship in this scenario). The weight of Taxation over their lifetime would make the it clear to people considering immigrating to the United States whether to make the leap.
https://www.citizenshipinvest.com/en/programs/usa-e2-visa/
An interesting aside is that the bulk of countries who have birthright citizenship are in North and South America. Generally, European and Asian countries do not.
You fail to mention that many of the countries with birthright citizenship LIMIT that to those born to parents WHO HAVE LEGAL STATUS IN THAT COUNTRY.
This is something we need to be SUPREMELY careful about (no pun intended) if we are going to do this. No loopholes, clear language, and clear elucidation of law. That we are virtually the only country on earth that enables this, which is so easily exploited, is madness. People from other countries who don’t already know about this are shocked that it was ever the case here.
I am all for reforming it; I’m even ok with it being granted if both parents are legitimately naturalized (read: different from a visa or temporary status), but it is crystal clear we need to address this, and right quick. I would say, eliminate birthright citizenship *as it currently stands*. It is far too loose.
And to people that want us to be ‘more like Europe’: European countries do not grant birthright citizenship, and never have.
It is an amendment to the Constitution that opens the door for birthright citizenship due to its imprecise language. At the time it was written, neither party considered it would permit such an interpretation and that one of the 2 major parties would exploit that loophole to gain power. In the present political climate, it will be very difficult to pass an amendment that closes such a loophole if it enhances the security of the country. If the Dems take power and pack SCOTUS as they promise, you won’t have to worry about the constitutionality of any laws. The Constitution and all its amendments will become a dead letter.
I love how all you guys are now questioning how the Constitution and its amendments were written regarding birthright citizenship but are absolutely CERTAIN that the Second Amendment, as originally written, accurately predicted and protected high powered weapons of war being legally owned and wielded by anyone and everyone for all time.
@Anonymous
No, it’s just you. False equivalency, but that is how your entitled little mind thinks. You believe you are smart and presenting logic, but the inability to think critically and understand nuance are not your strong suits. Many of us here are seasoned, intercontinental people, you have never ventured outside of your borough and long for a 15 minute city so you never have to. Let the grownups talk.
Hehehehehehehe – oh BOY – I had no idea I was chatting with “seasoned, intercontinental people!!!!” Gosh – I feel so privileged! Thank you for sharing such wordly knowledge with the rest of us, James!
Sheesh, not only a False equivalency, you want a court to overturn the 2nd admenment, rather than the introduction of a new admenment.
Glad you approve. I do too.
@unadulterated
Agreed. Not even close to precise enough.
Coming here hoping to get Turley’s take on the atrocious Alito opinion from USPS v. California, and we get this…
Then move on …
He knows who buys his books and what they want to read. Never let it be said that Turley doesn’t know his audience.
That means that he knows who you are, yet he allows you to come here everyday to trash him.
BRAVO, Turley!
if George Conway and rick Wilson had a baby it’d be A
I’m sure the senator has the support of the majority of AMERICAN people to put an end to this abuse. I would go a bit further and cancel many of bogus citizenships of the past.
Totally agree. Melania should definitely have her citizenship revoked. I mean – she was here illegally doing soft-core pron – America can do better.
And how’s your pedo colelction?
As long as Trump, Tood Blanche and GOP are in charge – all pedos have safe haven in the US.
Yep – Todd Blanche is the one who moved Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum security prison in return for her saying “Trump was a choir boy everytime he flew Epstein-Air.” Like anyone believes THAT – coming from the guy who said “You can grab them by the p*ssy!”
Aww, the lefty has no other way to cope but to believe everything on MSDNC is really-real.
Well smarty pants, come back with some research and we might take you off the TDS list and onto the “suspected TDS” list.
HAHAHAHAHAH – JFC – he could literally provide REEMS and BINDERS of evidence and you chuckleheads would just say “fake news.” For love of GOD – just admit that you don’t care about facts or evidence and just believe in Trump – no matter what he does or says. That’s OK!!!! You’re allowed to do that! It’s your right as an American! But don’t pretend like you want to actually see ‘evidence’ to the contrary of some dumbass thing he’s done or said.
How is Melania involved in the birthright issue? Is it maybe a weak-minded moron’s attempt to bring in Trump’s wife where she has nothing to do with the issue at hand? You know what might be more analogous…Obama?
Melania was in the US illegally. Thus, if we’re revoking citizenships to Americans who weren’t born here and acted illegally. She needs to go. Here are the facts: https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/best-of-the-week/2016/melania-trump-modeled-in-us-prior-to-getting-work-visa/
Does that mean we can boot Baron too?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/melania-trump-immigration-history-228160
“’Contrary to published reports, Mrs. Trump never worked in the United States in 1995 because she was never in the United States in 1995. Instead, the documentation reflects that Mrs. Trump’s first entry to the United States was on August 27, 1996 pursuant to a B-1/B-2 visitor visa,’” Wildes wrote. ‘Shortly thereafter, on October 18, 1996, the U.S. Embassy in Slovenia issued Mrs. Trump her first H-1B visa, a category which authorizes employment as a model in the United States. Mrs. Trump was thereafter consistently issued H-1B visas, five in total, between October 1996 and 2001, at which point she became a lawful permanent resident, or ‘green card’ holder.’”
Is that when she was doing soft-core pron?
So typical.. Lost BIGLY on your first point, so now you try another. Yeah, sure, Sidney Sweeney is Melania’s illegitimate daughter. But you LIKE Sidney, don’tcha. Oh wait. Sidney is a Democrat.
NOBODY loses when we’re all looking at Melania’s ta-tas – AMIRITE?!?!?! I mean – I know they’re fake- but STILL!
Wrong. She is the real thing.
No, Big Mike was doing gay porn with his wife Barrack.
Unfortunately you timeline of Melania’s visa history leaves out a vital fact.
As you say she entered on a B1/B2 tourist visa on August 27, 1996. This visa does not allow paid employment. She received the H1B visa on October 18, 1996. This allowed her to work.
She cannot have applied for the H1B visa. That application is made by an employer who wants her work here. The Metropolitan Models agency sponsored her for the H1B.
The problem is that accounting ledgers from Metropolitan Models show that she was paid $20,526 for 10 modeling assignments between September 10 and October 15, 1996, while still on the B1/B2 visa, and before the H1B visa was issued. This would have been illegal.
She is by definition an illegal immigrant because she, and the modelling agency lied in the H1B application.
Clown, you assume that she was paid or hired for any photos prior to H1B status.
Second, you, -clown, have NO idea how, when, or if she was paid, even if, arguendo, it was for work done prior to her H1 visa. The poses could have been done for creation of a portfolio.
Third, MANY employment contracts designate “probationary periods” wherein payment is NOT secured until a contingent is met (in this case, the securing of H1B visa).
Why do you think you know more than everyone else? Because you do not.
The proposed amendment should move ahead, as the biggest danger now lurking on the horizon — thanks to the ill-conceived and irrational decision in Trump v. Barbara (read the dissents) — relates to another provision: the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” clause. After Barbara, there will be arguments, similarly ill-conceived and irrational, that the child of an illegal alien North Korean, Chinese or Palestinian mother born here will be eligible to the presidency. And if the America-despising Democrats and DSA loons succeed in packing the Supreme Court, do not be surprised if that absurdity gets ratified. Not good.
The Founders would strongly disapprove …, not that anyone today cares. Franklin’s 1787 warning is closing in on becoming a reality.
if that absurdity gets ratified…. How would they do that? What’s the plan?
If the Supreme Court determined that the constitution permits, birthright citizenship, I’m not sure how legislation overcomes that?
Ummm… by amending the Constitution with an Amendment…
🤨
A good starting point for debate, but there are problems with it. It would create a permanent underclass (as mentioned above), and lots of Asian women work in sex spas in the US on tourist visas. Since the customers pay in cash and are not identified, how do you know the paternity of the child?
HUH? DUMB
Coming here to give birth -not getting pregnant here. Do you pay cash in sex spas?? ha ha ha ha ha
When in doubt, deny citizenship.
How do they do it in Canada and Europe?
Wow! look how far the Democrats have come! Once upon a time, the 14th Amendment took away their slaves, now it’s bringing them voters that want to be slaves.
If a pregnant Israeli Jewish woman steps across the border into Gaza and gives birth to a son, should he have equal opportunity to be a member of the government in Gaza?
Gaza does not have birthright citizenship.
Anonymous,
Why not?
Why would she?
oh good, we’ll finally know which congressman is serving the American people and who’s serving themselves.
BRAVO Sen. Rand Paul!
(this is particularly important, if, in the near future, AI is able to create 3D home-printed little babies, now that we already have multiple genders.)
(or maybe extraterrestrial aliens from Mars could land and procreate on American soil, become immediate citizens, and mass produce. Oh oh.
You are right that it may not pass but I do not believe there are good faith arguments on both sides.
This would create a permanent underclass of people in the US. Thankfully it will never pass.
As compared to the current underclass of people we already have thanks to the libtards?
Talk about telling on yourself. do you like that cheap near-slave labor from the poor unfortunates?
Explain. Our immigration laws are very liberal, as long as you follow them you will get citizenship. How would this create a permanent underclass?
Stated simply, what you wrote makes no sense.
Sally: I was born to American parents on a US Army base in the US where my father was serving. I am caucasian, heterosexual, married to the same woman for 44 years and Catholic. I had a successful career in a long disfavored industry. I am politically conservative and registered Republican. I vote in every election and required to show an ID to vote. Given the increase in the calls for random violence against people like me, I am considering carrying a concealed weapon. I am starting to feel like a member of a underclass in my own country.
is there a point anywhere in that?
Damn you’re dense…a productive taxpaying natural born white citizen is the current underclass in their own country.
@unadulterated0263034d80–
By all means, carry a concealed firearm, not just any old “weapon” like a knife or pepper spray. But I would encourage you to do so legally, that is, obtain a concealed carry permit (CCP). Depending upon that state in which you live, it’s not all that difficult.
In the state in which I live, it’s the modest one-time investment in two days’ worth of training regarding the law, instruction in self-defense tactics, and a minimal amount of live-fire testing, all of which I am sure you will pass with flying colors.
As for the weapon of choice, I recommend either the Glock 43 or Kahr PM9. They have been criticized for their comparatively low magazine capacities, but they are the ultimate mix of concealability and stopping power.
And yes, like you, I am starting to feel like a member of the permanent underclass
Old white man feels increasingly irrelevant and thinks buying a gun with optimal “stopping power” is going to solve his problems. How about volunteering at a food bank or your local library instead? How about working for the arbor society and planting some trees? If you feel like an underclassman, that’s on you. No gun is going to fix that.
@Anonymous–
I already volunteer at a no-kill dog rescue kennel. As a volunteer there I am treated with respect, unlike at the food bank where I once volunteered, and where I was treated like sh*t. (And most dogs are so much more grateful and loving than most people, anyway!)
And as for your assertion that “buying a gun with optimal “stopping power” is going to solve [my] problems,” where did I ever say that?
Carrying a concealed handgun is not going to solve all my problems, but it may just keep me alive.
Or not. Who knows?
“Depending upon that state in which you live, [a CCP] not all that difficult.”
And in some 29 states, not even necessary. (Though training is still a good idea.)
@Sally–
As asked by others in this thread, exactly HOW does this create a “permanent underclass of people?” . You seem to be unable or unwilling to explain.
Sadly, though, you are probably right in that it is very unlikely that this amendment will ever pass. The Democrats seem quite happy with the permanent underclass that we already have, i.e., the millions of illegal aliens (and yes, that’s exactly what they are, FORGET this “undocumented immigrant” cr*p) who work for slave wages and “live in the shadows.” What would we do without them?
I’m pretty sure it’s the Dems that are pushing for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Most are already paying taxes and contributing IMMENSE wealth to our society by doing the jobs Americans consider themselves too good for. If you disagree – there are plenty of roofs you can start putting on and plenty of fruit you can go pick Dr. Z.
@Anonymous–
Yes, I agree that these illegal aliens ARE “contributing IMMENSE wealth to our society” but they are doing so at the expense of their being paid slave wages, and, occasionally, they are even cheated out of their earnings altogether by unscrupulous “employers.” What a life, if you can call it that.
And as for your assertion that “[m]ost are already paying taxes,” how many are doing so, and how much? How about some FACTS, please?
And as for a “path to citizenship,” not in my lifetime, thank God! So let the Democrats sow the seeds for this country’s own destruction; I won’t live to see it. My ashes will have long since been scattered off of the Golden Gate Bridge! (Which may be illegal, of course, but hey, what the h*ll? I won’t be caring.)
About 50% of undocumented immigrants pay taxes according to this source: https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
Further, “Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Most of that amount, $59.4 billion, was paid to the federal government while the remaining $37.3 billion was paid to state and local governments. In a large majority of states (40), undocumented immigrants pay higher state and local tax rates than the top 1 percent of households living within their borders.”
@Anonymous–
Thank you for the very informative link: you have thoroughly answered my request for “facts.” Yes, the illegals do contribute IMMENSE wealth to this country, and with valid work permits, might contribute even more.
But as for a “path to citizenship,” again I have to say, “Not in my lifetime, thank God.”
Why “not in your lifetime, thank God.” Why not allow them to become citizens if they are contributing to society?
whatever they “contribute” is eaten up by all the welfare they suck up, paid by citizen taxpayers.
I went to the link just to see the composition of the board of the entity that did the “study”. It is exactly what I expected – a bunch of left wingers.
But I was curious about the data. A big pie chart shows the illegals are paying $33 BILLION into Social Security and Medicare. But that’s not possible. It’s unlawful for illegal aliens to obtain a Social Security number, so how can they be paying into SS and Medicare, I wondered? So I went to the Appendix to see the methodology. Turns out, it’s all made up. It’s based on assumptions about how illegals will behave after Democrats finally succeed in making them legal.
It’s garbage.
@Anonymous–
Thank you for doing the fact-check that I was too lazy to do.
I stand corrected as to the quality of the submitted “facts.”
Well get ready to ‘stand corrected’ on ‘standing corrected.’
“Contrary to common assumptions, undocumented immigrants, or those without a valid and unexpired visa or other form of legal status, also pay federal, state, and local taxes. Because they are not eligible for Social Security numbers (SSNs), the IRS requires these individuals to comply with federal tax reporting by issuing them individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs). Some survivors of domestic violence, Cuban and Haitian entrants, student visa holders, and certain spouses and children of those with employment visas also use ITINs. According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, there were 5.4 million active ITINs in January 2021.”
“Frequently debated are the short-term and long-term economic impacts of immigration in the US (NASEM 2017). According to a 2023 analysis by the Cato Institute, immigrants overall have a larger positive fiscal impact than native-born Americans when accounting for both groups’ incomes, taxes paid, and government benefits received; this is, in part, because immigrants on average pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits at federal, state, and local government levels combined (Nowrasteh 2023).”
link: https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/do-immigrants-pay-taxes
You don’t need a SSN to pay into social security or medicare.
“Contrary to common assumptions, undocumented immigrants, or those without a valid and unexpired visa or other form of legal status, also pay federal, state, and local taxes. Because they are not eligible for Social Security numbers (SSNs), the IRS requires these individuals to comply with federal tax reporting by issuing them individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs). Some survivors of domestic violence, Cuban and Haitian entrants, student visa holders, and certain spouses and children of those with employment visas also use ITINs. According to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, there were 5.4 million active ITINs in January 2021.”
link: https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/do-immigrants-pay-taxes
According to the Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility
the annual cost of illegal immigration was at least $150.7 billion as of 2024
60% of illegals are on welfare programs. the lifetime cost of each illegal to the US citizen taxpayer is $68,000
Each illegal alien cost the US taxpayer $957 p/year after they have paid taxes
Each illegal has an annual cost of $8, 776
-cosm.aei.org
So what the heck is a “national”? This sounds like a loophole to me, though I don’t know much about immigration law.
“A citizen, Devoted to one’s own nation or its interests; patriotic.”
You really didn’t know? I ask because we get a lot of insincere types around here.
Perhaps I should word my question more clearly. Section 2.1 of Rand Paul’s proposed amendment states that you are a citizen if you are born in the United States, and one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, or a “national.” I looked up the definition of “national” and found that one of the many definitions is, a “subject of a particular nation, who is entitled to its protection.” That seems wide open to interpretation, to me, and could lead to the justification of continuing birthright citizenship, contrary to the purpose of Paul’s proposed amendment. So what the heck is the LEGAL definition of “national.”