Trump Is Right About Birthright Citizenship: He isn’t rewriting the 14th Amendment; he’s applying the law as it is, based on its plain language and the Supreme Court’s existing precedent.

The Federalist ^ | 01/24/2025 | Matthew Raymer

[E. Pluribus Unum]

In before the dueling court case citations.

[Dr. Franklin]

From my post on another thread:

excluding Indians not taxed,
If we understand that to have meant the Native Americans, which would include those of Central and South America, isn't that an unconstitutional racist distinction prohibited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Those precedents prohibiting discrimination based on race weren't quite fully developed at the time of the Wong case. If this statutory distinction stands, then citizenship by birth can be denied to Native Americans coming from south of the border, but not Africans, Asians or Europeans. Furthermore, what is the difference between Native Americans who don't pay taxes to Uncle Sam and illegal aliens working off the books and not paying taxes? Curious how you will explain the distinction between the two.

[logi_cal869]

bkmk

[ifinnegan]

Good article.

Birth tourists are here legally. It’s a different argument than illegals.

I still think the tourist visa are not subject to US jurisdiction because being subject to laws is not the same as being under a county’s jurisdiction.

But I’m not a constitutional scholar. I assume Trump’s lawyers will be able to make a good argument.

[castlebrew]

“Tourists” are “domiciled” - they haven’t (legally)moved here to live permanently. They’re visiting.

[mass55th]

"Wong’s parents were legal immigrants to the United States. The entire foundation of the plaintiffs’ argument."

My father came here to the U.S. legally with his parents and two brothers from Holland in 1913. In May of 1913, my grandfather filed a petition of intent to become a U.S. Citizen. He had to affirm that "It is my bonafide intention to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly so Wilhelmina, Queen of the Netherlands." He also had to swear: "I am not an anarchist; I am not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy; and it is my intention in good faith to become a citizen of the United States of America and to permanently reside therein SO HELP ME God"

On the 20th day of May, 1920, his Petition for Naturalization was submitted via the form distributed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Naturalization Service, and was confirmed and signed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Wayne County, New York the same day. This Petition for Naturalization required him to make the same affirmations at he made in the Petition of Intention, and sign it as well.

According to records, the three sons, one being my father, became naturalized citizens at the same time my grandfather did. My grandmother died in 1919, so wasn't included in the Petition for Naturalization.

In the 1893 Supreme Court decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, had his/her parents become naturalized citizens, he/she would have automatically become a citizen once his/her parents did. As well, Wong Kim Ark had the legal right to apply for citizenship once they reached the age of 18, even if his/her parents didn't.

As far as I know, when they come here, no illegal alien is forced to sign a Petition of Intention, or sign an affidavit renouncing their allegiance to the country they just came from. Therefore, they are not entitled to the same Constitutional privileges as American citizens, as they are still subjects of the government and laws of the country they came from.

[ridesthemiles]

“BIRTH TOURISTS” ARE coming to the USA for one reason & ONLY ONE reason. They are seeking dual citizenship for babies who, when grown, can demand & access better education changes.

There may be other nefarious reasons, as yet unknown.

They do not work here—they do not pay taxes here.

They are VISITORS.

NONE of this “BABIES are citizens” is structured as such in any other country that I know of.

[TexasGator]

“If we understand that to have meant the Native Americans, which would include those of Central and South America, “

Strange logic. Wrong, but strange.

[Dick Bachert]

EXACTLY!!

[whitney69]

“...isn’t that an unconstitutional racist distinction...”

Yes because the term isn’t a racial distiction. It is a geological determination. The term native American wasn’t even in existance and widely used until the 1960’s, over 170 years sing the ratification of our Constitution. And when it is used it is a changing of our language to denote the current disignation of arriving European civilization. But then it has to be proven that the people here when that happened had no connection to the invading group. And that hasn’t been proven either as migration has been identified and they don’t know the etent of it.

So if the term is a latter day excuse to try to phylum people then it failed miserably. According to the dictionary, native is defined as a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not. American is defined as a person born to the north, central, or south american designated countries. Everything else is politicially motivated...a purposefull use of words used to create inclusion.

I was born here, served the US more half my life, and I will die here as an American. My background is Irish, English, and Scottish arriving on our spoils in the 1800’a. My wife is one eighth Cherokee out of a tribe in Oklahoma. We were both born here. So we are both Americans.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment makes clear that “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. It doesn’t remark on the citizenship of the parents, or how long they were on American soil, just the event of the birth was on an American reservation.

I spent my early life in the San Joaquin valley of California and witnessed this situation. It was politically and financially motivated. But like many things in our history, it’s called a loophole. And until congress writes and ratifies another amendment to take 14 out, it is the law of the land. And don’t hold your breath as that takes a 2/3 majority of both houses. It won’t happen in this congress.

wy69

[Gene Eric]

>> In clear and distinguishable contrast, children born to illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States

well then, that would be the kill-shot, wouldn’t it

[CapandBall]

While I’d prefer citizenship to babies of citizen parents only, I can grudgingly accept legal resident or birth tourism if it means the end of illegal aliens anchor babies.

[Sequoyah101]

The argument that anybody that stumbles across the border and squirts out a kid has produced a US citizen is absurd. If that were the case, why then would the specification, "subject to the jurisdiction theteof" have been made? Aliens are illegal and not citizens and not party to any agreement making them subject to jurisdiction and no, throwing them out does not make them having been subject to jurisdiction. An illegal aliens only right is to be treated morally right. They have no other right. To say otherwise makes citizenship worthless and irrelevant.

Surely this will be a quick ruling in favor of Trump.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Omitting some key facts, the plaintiffs argue this means that all children born in the United States of all immigrant parents, with the aforementioned very rare exceptions, automatically are U.S. citizens.

Here is an anectdote to show how this was intrepreted in the 1990s: During one of the Cuban boatlifts, refugees who were planning to illegally come to the US were rescued at sea. Among those rescued onboard the US Coast Guard ship were pregnant women who were having sex on the deck of the ship, so that labor might be induced so their baby would be born on the ship (US territory) and therefore automatically be a US citizen anchor baby. Now, how insane is that?

[kvanbrunt2]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.>>> The only way these people, babies, etc, are to be citizens is to become subject to the jurisdiction. They would have to surrender as illegal aliens to the nearest federal agency and proceed to legalize themselves.

[Sequoyah101]

Senator Howard is no help.

[Inyo-Mono]

Read the quote from Jacob Howard, author of the 14th right above your post.

[Loud Mime]

Bookmark