China using Mariana Islands to get US birthright citizenship for children, lawmaker warns

Birthright citizenship is a much discussed topic in the media as some Republicans have toyed with the idea of getting rid of it, arguing that it was never constitutional. Congressman Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., earlier this week criticized a loophole that Chinese nationals are reportedly using to get U.S. citizenship through a U.S. territory.

"Under an Obama-era policy, Chinese nationals can visit the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands without a visa," Tiffany wrote on the social media platform, X. "Chinese women visit the islands to deliver their babies who automatically become U.S. citizens."

According to reports, there is a policy that was implemented under the Obama administration that allowed Chinese nationals to visit the northern Mariana Islands without a Visa.

Tiffany said during a Thursday interview with the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show that many Chinese nationals come to the Mariana Islands, have children in order to get them birthright citizenship and abuse the system. "We call it birth tourism," he said. "There are more children being born to Chinese nationals than there are to native people of the Marianas. And that tells you everything you need to know."

He alleged that some of the Chinese nationals had communist ties and were still allowed to come to the islands and participate in the birth tourism process.

During a hearing, Tiffany questioned Ur M. Jaddou, who was appointed as the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2021 about birth tourism.

"Why is the administration allowing this to continue where it is not required of a Chinese communist national coming into the northern Mariana Islands without a visa, having a child and that child becoming a citizen? Do you think that should be the case?" Tiffany asked. Jaddou said she was not a foreign policy expert and according to Tiffany, she didn't seem to be aware of that being an issue.

Conservative scholars have argued that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't grant citizenship to children of immigrants if they are born in the U.S., while liberal scholars argue it does. Earlier this week, Congressman Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., said he thinks President-elect Donald Trump ought to end birthright citizenship through an executive order because he doubts the Senate will pass such a measure.

"In the Senate, they have a filibuster rule which means for things that are purely policy-related, they're going to need 60 votes," Grothman said on the "Furthermore with Amanda Head" podcast. "They're not going to get 60 votes. So it's going to have to be his just order coming down."

Former Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced legislation in July that would end birthright citizenship for immigrants who came to the U.S. Grothman argued that Democrats misinterpreted the 14th Amendment and said it was aimed at former slaves, not immigrants.

"When they said in the Constitution, or when the amendments in the Constitution were put in, as to who was a citizen, they were aiming at former slaves," he said. "And now, the Democrats misconstrued [it]."

quotes:

And if you look at the legislative history, the debates on the floor of the Senate where the citizenship clause – remember when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed out of the House of Representatives, it did not have a citizenship clause. It was introduced by Senator Howard on the floor of the Senate. And he was, during the course of the discussions, asked precisely, “What do you mean by this citizenship?” And everybody understood what they were trying to do with the Fourteenth Amendment was constitutionalize the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, they thought, was on uncertain constitutional terms, whether Congress had exceeded its authority under the powers given to it under the Thirteenth Amendment. And even if it was constitutionally valid, they were concerned that a future Congress might repeal the 1866 Civil Rights Act. So they wanted to lock it into the Constitution. And that was the principle purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.

And with respect to the Citizenship Clause, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, I think, is very clear. It said, “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Now, you might argue that “not subject to any foreign power” is more clear on the question of whether somebody born here to parents who are subject to foreign powers, who are still citizens of Ireland or Mexico or Japan or what have you, would clearly not be citizens under the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Maybe the change in language to the Fourteenth Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction,” was intended to broaden the grant of citizenship. If you look at the debates, though, you will see that the change had one purpose in mind. When it said “not subject to any foreign power,” the issue was whether children of Native Americans, “Indians” in their terminology, were automatically citizens.

Senator Lyman Trumbull was asked point blank, “Well, what do you mean? Doesn’t this mean that Indians living on the reservation are going to be covered by your new clause since they were, quote, ‘most clearly subject to our jurisdiction both civil and military?” Senator Lyman Trumbull, who is one of the key figures in the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded,
“What the phrase that we’re using means is that it’s complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who actually introduced the language of this Clause, contended that it should be construed to mean “full and complete jurisdiction,” the same extent that we have now under the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

The first executive decision on this reached the same conclusion. Attorney General Wiliams in 1873 takes up the issue on what it means, when dealing with an interpretation of the Expatriation Act that was addressed at the same time. He wrote: “The citizenship clause, the words are ‘jurisdiction’ in it must be understood to mean ‘absolute or complete jurisdiction.’ Aliens, among whom are persons born here but naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.”

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview

quotes from the discussion:

the powerful language of Wong Kim Ark is at the very end of this quote, “Every citizen subject of another country while domiciled here is within the allegiance”
[unverified by me]

the word “domiciled” meant you had to be lawfully a resident. Just somebody that was there unlawfully was not considered to be domiciled. You had to be there with permission with intent to stay permanently. That was all encapsulated in the word “domiciled.”

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.