There is an argument that we could try to make that Illegals are not “subject to the Jurisdiction...” of the United States because they entered the country in violation of federal law and are in continual evasion of that law as long as they illegally remain. Then one could try to distinguish Wong Kim Ark on the basis that his father was a legal immigrant. However, most likely we would lose at the Supreme Court.
This is why I think that Sen. Cruz is right to say that we should try to change the law and modify the Amendment because there are serious legal arguments on both sides of this issue. It just bugs me when people quote Levin, assume this is a slam dunk for our side, and then criticize Cruz for being a good lawyer and recognizing that most likely the courts would rule against us.
Media Ignores Constitutional Experts Debunking Birthright Citizenship
Myths about birthright citizenship—promoted by liberals, embraced by establishment Republicans, and repeated by mainstream media pundits without critical examination—have been debunked by experts spanning the political spectrum. But none of those people are being given A-list treatment by major media outlets to respond.
Among modern scholars who can shed light on this issue, Professor John Eastman—the former dean of Chapman University’s law school and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas—thoroughly discusses the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause in From Feudalism to Consent. He explores the congressional speeches of two of the clause’s primary authors, Senators Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard, and how they made it clear that this part of the amendment only applied to children born to parents who were not citizens of another country. Yet Eastman—who is also an experienced media commentator—has not been featured on major shows this week to inform the public discussion.
Another scholarly source is Professor Lino Graglia’s article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics. In it, the professor explores in greater detail the point in our first report in this series, that the 39th Congress—which in 1865 voted for the Thirteenth Amendment and in 1866 voted for the first Civil Rights Act—later in 1866 repackaged the Civil Rights Act’s definition of citizenship in the new Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Civil Rights Act’s original language explicitly excluded citizens of foreign countries.
Graglia also notes that instant citizenship is an incredibly strong magnet that temps foreigners to break our laws. “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducements to illegal entry.”
Others on the media’s general go-to list for legal issues who have spoken out this past week to affirm that the Fourteenth Amendment does not include birthright citizens—like the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and National Review’s Andrew McCarthy—have also been notably absent from major interviews.
This is why I think that Sen. Cruz is right to say that we should try to change the law and modify the Amendment because there are serious legal arguments on both sides of this issue. It just bugs me when people quote Levin, assume this is a slam dunk for our side, and then criticize Cruz for being a good lawyer and recognizing that most likely the courts would rule against us.
We must pass the law in Congress first to see if it passes Constitutional muster. Every year for more than a decade, bills have been introduced in Congress to eliminate birthright citizenship. This could be done quickly if the Reps controlled Congress and the WH.
Instead of quotes by Levin, why don't you listen to what he says unfiltered by anyone? Then you can make a decision on how you think we should proceed on eliminating birthright citizenship.
The reason we can deport illegals is because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. immigration law. If an illegal alien wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we couldn’t prosecute them for the many crimes they commit.