Posted on 12/12/2024 8:24:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
President-elect Donald Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship for those born on U.S. soil by illegal migrant parents could put to rest a hot-button constitutional debate that’s loomed over the country for decades.
The incoming president has repeatedly vowed to end birthright citizenship immediately upon entering office, one of the more ambitious agenda items within his immigration enforcement platform. While the proposal has divided border hawks and immigration advocates, both sides generally agree the debate boils down to interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the conclusion of which will likely fall to the Supreme Court.
“Our position is that the 14th Amendment gives citizenship at birth only to those born in the United States to parents who were residing here with the permission of the United States,” Christopher Hajec, director of litigation for the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates for stricter immigration laws, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “That was the holding of the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark v. United States , a case that is still controlling.”
“The Court reasoned that only those residing here with permission met the requirement in the 14th Amendment of being ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States,” Hajec continued. “Under this rule, children of illegal aliens (who do not reside here with permission) or children of tourists (who do not reside here, but are only visiting) are not citizens by virtue of their birth here.”
Wong Kim Ark v. United States was an 1898 Supreme Court case that established birthright citizenship as a constitutional right. However, the decision was not unanimous, with Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Associate Justice John Harlan dissenting to the majority opinion. Their dissent— which argued that Chinese aliens were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they retained allegiance to the Chinese emperor — largely paved the way for contemporary objections to the landmark decision.
Trump emerged victorious on Election Day after campaigning heavily on a hardline immigration platform. The incoming president has vowed to resume construction on the southern border wall, conduct the largest deportation operation in U.S. history, revive the Remain Mexico program and smack both Mexico and Canada with sky-high tariffs if their governments don’t do more to stop illegal migration, among other proposals.
Also on the to-do list is a re-examination of the first sentence in the first section of the 14 Amendment, which states: “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.”
“We’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people,” Trump said as recently as Sunday during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press”. “But we have to end it.”
“If we can, through executive action,” the president-elect said when pressed on how he could get it done.
Trump’s argument for revoking birthright citizenship from those born by illegal migrant parents is the correct interpretation of the law, Hajec said to the DCNF.
Left-wing proponents of lax immigration laws are, unsurprisingly, not a fan of the idea. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has called such an idea “blatantly unconstitutional” and the American Immigration Lawyers Association has long advocated for protecting the current interpretation of the law.
While declining to opine on the legality of Trump’s proposal, a spokesperson for the Migration Policy Institute pointed the DCNF to one of its earlier studies that cautioned against it on largely humanitarian grounds. The MPI study concluded that revoking birthright citizenship would create a “self-perpetuating class” of people excluded from social membership and would actually swell the number of illegal migrants living in the U.S.
However, border hawks argue misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has incentivized illegal immigration into the U.S. and countless numbers of foreign nationals have flocked to the country over the years in hopes of their children gaining citizenship, a milestone that largely paves the way for the individual’s family unit to be allowed to remain and reap a plethora of taxpayer-funded benefits.
“President-elect Trump is right: birthright citizenship must end,” Joey Chester, communications manager of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), stated to the DCNF. “Birthright citizenship rewards lawlessness, and ultimately encourages more illegal immigration, by granting U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and increasing the likelihood that the illegal alien parents will obtain permanent residency.”
While corporate media outlets were quick to chastise Trump for incorrectly claiming on Sunday that the U.S. is the only country in the world that provides birthright citizenship, a surprisingly small number of countries around the world do so, according to the CIA World Factbook. Not a single member country of the European Union offers unconditional citizenship at birth, and neither do a number of other U.S. allies in the West.
There were roughly 250,000 babies born to illegal migrant parents in 2016 — long before the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis was sparked under the Biden-Harris administration. The issue isn’t confined to just those in the country unlawfully. Birthright citizenship in the U.S has even spawned an international industry known as “birth tourism,” in which hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals on tourist visas are believed to be giving birth on U.S. soil every year.
The U.S. experienced a disastrous border crisis under the Biden-Harris administration, with fiscal years 2023 and 2024 being the worst years in the country’s history for migrant encounters. There were roughly 8.5 million migrant encounters along the southern border during the four fiscal years of Biden’s White House tenure, and most polls indicated immigration became a major concern for American voters.
FAIR called on Trump and Republicans in Washington, D.C., to finally take action on the birthright citizenship issue, but also acknowledged that a court battle would undoubtedly ensue.
“Congress must pass legislation that interprets the full text of the 14th Amendment and clarifies that children born to illegal aliens in the U.S. will not be granted U.S. citizenship,” Chester said to the DCNF. “Unfortunately, we know that if President-elect Trump ends birthright citizenship, through executive action or by signing a law passed by Congress, open-borders advocates will immediately sue to strike down the measure.”
The ACLU, just one of numerous behemoth liberal organizations opposed to Trump’s immigration agenda, says it filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his first administration since 2016. The group reportedly has a plan-of-action underway to obstruct Trump’s second-term border enforcement proposals.
“Ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to decide the issue,” Chester concluded.
It’s about time this was settled - Trump will issue an EO, it will be challenged, appealed and hopefully added to the SC docket fairly quickly. If the current SC, stacked with Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and three Trump appointees can’t make the right ruling on birthright citizenship, at least the issue will be settled.
I would think the case of American Indians being excluded birthright citizenship might also be argued. It took an Act of Congress in the ‘20s.
That should be addressed wholeheartedly.
This is exactly why the phrase, "... and subject to the jurisdiction..." was included. In my reading of history, they weren't all that concerned about illegal immigration back then. Yes, they had proper channels for legal immigration but it wasn't a widespread, news-making problem then. This phrase was included so that foreign dignitaries, foreign merchants, and even simple tourists didn't have children with automatic citizenship simply because of the location of their birth.
The 14th amendment rules out citizenship by birth of illegal immigrants.
Kind of like the “shall not be infringed” wording of the 2nd amendment. Liberals like to sniff around that wording as if the sniffing around makes its plain meaning controversial and less clear.
So....should be noted on birth certificate and SS card...and original SS card should be used for car license.
I don't see it.
Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL and not citizens. They are not protected by our Constitution.
The whole anchor baby logic is extremely circular.
My birth certificate does not have a SS number. Of course, that thing is 73 years old.
I’d hate to have to dig out my SS card for a car license. And I think it says it’s not to be used for identification purposes.
RE: Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL and not citizens.
Nobody is arguing that.
The issue is and always has been — WHAT HAPPENS TO BABIES BORN ON US SOIL WHOSE PARENTS ( OR MOTHER ) IS HERE ILLEGALLY?
Anyone who is subject to several jurisdictions simultaneously cannot decide who's jurisdiction awards citizenship to the child, so the legal tenets of "domicile" and "domicile of origin" would rule.
For example, if I am an American citizen who is living in England, I am subject to the jurisdiction of UK law, but I'm also subject to the United States Internal Revenue Service's requirement that I file an IRS form 1040 each year that I'm abroad. That makes me subject to both the UK and USA jurisdictions.
People here on a non-immigrant visa (student visas [e.g., F-1, M-1], temporary work visas [e.g., L-1, H-1B, H-2b], tourist visas [B-2]) swear an oath that they have a primary residence in a foreign country that they have no intention of abandoning. That is the definition of "domicile." They have a domicile in their home country that they must still pay property taxes on, possibly collect rents on, possibly pay rent on, must keep up appearances on, pay utilities on, etc. They are subject to their home country's laws on income, debts, and property while in the United States. That makes them subject to multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
Furthermore, a person with domicile in a foreign country who gives birth in the United States would be ruled by "domicile of origin," meaning that their newborn child assumes the citizenship of their parent's domicile.
This is all it would take, with no new laws passed, no new amendments to the constitution, just an interpretation from the Supreme Court that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to the *sole* jurisdiction thereof, and other long-standing legal principles take over.
-PJ
-PJ
Of course.
I don't consider that "settled." If they don't rule correctly, and as evidence and common sense require, then this problem will seethe, and continue to do damage to the nation.
It must be settled correctly, or it isn't settled. It will remain as a gaping wound on our national existence.
Attempts would have to be made to fix this through the amendment process, which is very unlikely to happen.
It will be a disaster for the nation unless illegals and visitors are prevented from creating new "citizens."
So the question is: Who is NOT “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
Answer: It excludes children born to foreign diplomats, and foreign armies (invaders).
If the SCOTUS defines foreign nationals in the country illegally (a.k.a. “illegal aliens”) as “invaders”, they can be denied birthright citizenship.
True...The cards should be changed...it took 200 years before we had self sticking stamps.
I say the question is: Who is not subject to *multiple* jurisdictions at the same time? Only people subject to the *sole* jurisdiction of the United States can produce citizen babies.
Have a non-immigrant visa? No citizen baby.
Have two passports? No citizen baby.
Here illegally? No citizen baby.
-PJ
They should be deported just like their parents.
You wouldn’t want to separate a family would you.
Agree. All valid legal reasons to deny birthright citizenship.
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.