Birthright Citizenship: A Response to My Critics

Claremont Institute ^ | July 22, 2018 | Michael Anton

[Jim Noble]

They shouldn’t get hearings either.

Fine.

You and I agree on what SHOULD be.

But what we think is irrelevant to making it happen. I don't believe there is a single Federal judge who would rule the way you suggest. Not one.

[DoughtyOne]

Jim, IMO it is permissible to look at original intent.

Do we literally give people gun rights solely to have a militia? No.

We deem it the original intent that all citizens have access to gun ownership.

Was it the intent all children born on our soil be instant citizens? No.

They were trying to grant rights to a special class. We should recognize that and move on.

This has merely been interpreted incorrectly.

We should move back to the original intent.

The second doesn’t need a rewrite and neither does the 14th.

It just requires justices to review original intent and rule accordingly.

[lasereye]

With reference to original intent, Anton points out:

In my op-ed, I quoted another part of the debate, which my critics pass over in silence because it guts their argument. (I note here that the quote is actually from Senator Lyman Trumbull. I correctly attributed the quote in my draft but, for reasons I don’t know, the attribution was changed in editing.) Senator Trumbull says that “subject to the jurisdiction” means:

not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

Senator Trumbull does not say “Not owing allegiance to a foreign government for whom one serves as an ambassador or minister.” He plainly says “anybody else,” i.e., any foreign nation or tribe whatsoever. To hammer the point home, he continues: “and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” To be “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” is to owe allegiance to no other country or tribe.

[semimojo]

The repetition of statements made in the debate over XIV is basically irrelevant to what has to happen now.

Exactly. When we interpret a law do we look at what the law as passed says, or do we rely on what Ted Kennedy might have said about it once in a floor debate?

[semimojo]

The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it.

Nonsense. The 14th Amendment went through the same process as all other the other Amendments, including national debate and a vote by the people's representatives in each state.

Does this "constitutional scholar" think we do amendments by plebiscite?

[semimojo]

To be “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” is to owe allegiance to no other country or tribe.

Do I always owe allegiance to the US because I was born here?

Can't I go to Canada and renounce my allegiance to the US, or isn't allegiance a matter of choice/free will?

[DoodleDawg]

Senator Trumbull says that “subject to the jurisdiction” means: not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. [Emphasis added.]

The problem being that terminology is not part of the 14th Amendment and not everyone defines "jurisdiction" as he does. The 14th Amendment says what it says. Don't like it? Disagree with it? Then repeal it or change it.

[DoughtyOne]

Powerful

Thanks lasereye.

[Yaelle]

I’d amend the constitution to read that birthright citizenship is for all children of American citizens and legal residents in process for citizenship* born on US soil.

That would eliminate birthright for the children of illegals and the children of Chinese and other ‘birth tourists.”

*in the process for citizenship excludes students, brasseros, work exchanges, diplomats, agents.

[GOPsterinMA]

Add those here as “students” to your list as well.

Birthright citizenship needs to go.

[Impy]

Step one is Congress passing a new citizenship law which I’m not holding my breath for but the President should be pushing for it,

[lasereye]

I don’t see how your question applies to the question of birthright citizenship. That seems to imply that nobody born here is a citizen.

[semimojo]

I don’t see how your question applies to the question of birthright citizenship.

The argument is that children born here to foreigners aren't really "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US because they somehow owe allegiance to their parents' country and therefore are not necessarily afforded citizenship under the 14th.

I think it's a silly argument and a lame attempt to get away from the plain meaning of the 14th as written.

Allegiance is something freely given, not passed along by birth, and unless you're a diplomatic agent of a foreign power, a member of a few selected Indian tribes, or a member of an occupying force you're subject to our jurisdiction.