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.”
JT, I am waiting for the first member of the love and tolerance crowd to call you a ‘nazi’ and suggesting that you be fired for saying such. Fortunately you have tenure and I hope you sleep with a gun by your bed (for your own protection).
antonio
Trump is terrorizing undocumented immigrants – who work a massive diversity of jobs critical to running the country and who pay billions of dollars of taxes every year. Trump decided to bomb Iran and thus screwed the Gulf of Hormuz. Trump decided to have a tariff war with the world – AND our closest ally and neighbor. Trump champions AI and data centers despite warnings from ALL of the tech bros and AGAINST the wishes of everyday Americans. The result? Diesel is now $6.31/gallon, and the Fed just had to increase interest rates, and the market is on pins and needles. If you still support him and his policies at this point……God help you.
“working a massive diversity of jobs critical to running the country” is NO excuse for entering country illegally–even if that is the only crime. Does Robin Hood get off because he made a donation to St. Judes?
I don’t disagree with you. We HAVE to have legitimate immigration reform. I think we ALL agree on that. But when you make your immigration policy simply ignoring it (Biden) OR terrorizing hardworking undocumented folks (Trump) you get chaos. We (and they) deserve better.
Biden let tens of thousands of convicted rapists and murderers into America to terrorize innocent Americans. This also empowered drug trafficking cartels and human traffickers, including child sex traffickers. The additional opioids led to thousands more American deaths. Trump is cleaning up the mess caused by Biden’s crimes against humanity.
Cool story bro! Then why his popularity hovering around 30%?
“Jurisdiction” in the Fourteenth Amendment is unqualified and therefore means full jurisdiction.
Illegal aliens are subject only to territorial jurisdiction; they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.
Therefore, illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If everyone born in the United States were automatically a citizen, the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be unnecessary. Their inclusion must therefore have a purpose.
The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is necessary precisely because birth within the United States alone is not sufficient. It excludes persons who, although born within U.S. territory, are not subject to the United States’ unqualified, full jurisdiction.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
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.
Turley Writes:
“Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.”
* * * * * * *
Both sides have good arguments. But Trump’s mass deportations have probably poisoned the well on this issue for at least 10 years.
Only for the mentally ill. The rest of us will be able to debate it rationally.
Estovir, ‘the rest of us’ meaning you and all your puppets?
Meaning non mentally ill people. Go back and learn basic English, moron.
Estovir, one could argue that fielding 20 puppets per day in an effort to dominate comment threads borders on mentally ill.
your childish and redundant reference to “Estovir” shows us all what your intelligence quotient is, and you don’t even belong on this blog accordingly. Are you here illegally?
100% accurate
Hmmm, how about binning 1A and 2A. Binning 1A would put Turley out of a job, and make him rage even more about rage. 2A would save thousands of lives, which might be more important than counting angels on pinhead issues such as birthright citizenship.
Just a thought. Toodles.
That makes no sense at all. Plus 2A saves lives. Eliminating it would only promote more crime.
Yes, all those lives saved in high schools…
In gun free zones, moron.
This is how you fix a really dangerous situation. You don’t keep debating 100 year old amendments that were clearly aimed at dealing only with freed slaves. You create a brand new one and let the people of today decide the future of this pernicious practice of silent invasion.
Amendments are virtually impossible to pass in these times. There are many others that are needed to prevent the US from collapsing, including a balanced budget amendment, probably the most drastically needed one of all.
For the Constitution to get the necessary updates, probably only a constitutional convention would be required. But that too is unlikely because each side is too afraid that it will be misused by the other side.
So . . . stymied.
#WeAreEstovir
The budget is not balanced due to unconstitutional individual, specific, and particular welfare state and charitable expenditures from Social Security and Medicare to SNAP, WIC, TANF, and school lunch.
Congress has the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” or ALL WELL PROCEED, which consists of security and basic infrastructure that facilitate the progress and advancement of the entire population and the nation, not one, some, or a few.
Social Security and Medicare address merely 18.7% of the population.
What America needs is a judicial branch that reads, comprehends, and implements the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights severely limit and restrict government while they provide maximal freedom to individuals.