Trump is right: "birthright citizenship" isn't required by the Constitution, no matter how many pundits tell you otherwise. And it's being badly abused.
THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, which I assume was the quivalent of the Congressional Record, of May 30, 1866, provides the debates and arguments in the Senate about the 14th Amendment. And – surprise! The Senators’ interpretation of “Under the Jurisdiction” is exactly what you wrote. See pages 2890 to2 897.
For only one example:
“ In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crimes against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the laws of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court, until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Sen. John Doolittle, The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, p. 2897
To me, this issue is one of "well, of course." Anyone with some knowledge of history and a good bit of common sense understands that.
The problem is progressive activists and judges that take common sense and twist it to mean whatever suits them, at the time. And when that no longer suits them, they will twist it again to fit the next progressive pursuit. (Hmmm, "Let's twist again, like we did last summer.")
We will hope that our current Supreme Court will deliver a common sense reading if and when they get the chance.
"...was meant to exclude those who owed allegiance to foreign nations".
This would mean, ipso facto, that all the Senators, Congressmen, billionaires, CEOs and VIPs that sport Israel passports have divided loyalties and would either lose US citizenship or at least have to choose. Good luck with that.
And if an exception is made for dual passport holders, either explicitly or in bureaucratic process, that would fly in the face of Trump's campaign promise to end the two-tiered justice system and uneven application of the law. Ruh roh.
If you have U.S. citizenship, you are by definition subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and our government doesn't especially care about any duties you might have to some other one: they will enforce our jurisdiction, full stop.
So no, dual citizenship doesn't affect this. What I wonder is why anyone would want it.
I hear ya. I wouldn't want it either. Taxes would be a bitch too.
But, "...was meant to exclude those who owed allegiance to foreign nations" is pretty clear. The US Constitution doesn't like divided loyalties. Sure, being subject to US jurisdiction and enforcement thereof is part of dual citizenship, but it's also clear that "owing allegiance to foreign nations" is in itself unacceptable, theoretically.
IMO this issue with regards to dual citizenship will almost certainly come up during a congressional and/or court fight by the groups wanting to scuttle Trump's efforts on this, as a lynch pin point or just to muddy the waters.
If a person is born in the United States, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States.
Section 1
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I don't see any ambiguity here.
Even people who weren't born here, even those who are undocumented and therefore "illegal", are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or else there would be no basis by which to label them "illegal."
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
It's clear as day. You don't even include this language in your article, except in the context of "persons born to foreign diplomats." You claim the "jurisdiction thereof," language has been misinterpreted as meaning "anyone within the borders of the United States," but you offer no reasonable alternative interpretation. If a person who is not a citizen, or a permanent resident, commits, let's say, a murder, they would be punished according to laws which prohibit murder. If they were to commit theft, they would be charged with theft. So what principles are they being accused of violating? The laws of this country. That subjects them to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It feels to me as though you avoid confronting these issues because to evade them is much more convenient to your argument.
No, they aren't. Take the example of children of diplomats. They may be born here, but they are the children of foreign citizens subject to the laws of their own country. Their presence here is irrelevant to their birth, just as it is for an American born overseas.
Countless children were and are still born to American servicemen in Germany and Korea. But they are Americans, not Germans or Koreans.
Now if diplomats who are ALLOWED to be here can be subject to their home country's laws, how much more so a trespasser? Because literally every illegal alien is both a trespasser and a criminal, and the accident of their children's birth doesn't change the fact that they have no right to be here whatsoever.
You might as well say that if I steal your car it's now legally mine.
If you steal my car, and I can prove that in court, then it doesn't matter whether or not you're a citizen or a temporary resident or an illegal immigrant, you're going to be found guilty of that crime and punished under the laws which prohibit that act.
Your argument about diplomats is a distraction from the facts about the jurisdiction to which illegal immigrants are subject.
Even though you're right and they are trespassing and are criminals, they're criminal trespassers according to *checks notes*... US immigration laws.
So while diplomats are given immunity and are therefore not subject to the laws of their host nation, illegal immigrants are offered no such privilege.
You are dancing around the issue. In what reality are illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the united states? By what unnatural principle are their children not subject to those same laws. Their children are born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
To interpret the amendment otherwise would require mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions.
An email commenter writes (helpfully):
THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, which I assume was the quivalent of the Congressional Record, of May 30, 1866, provides the debates and arguments in the Senate about the 14th Amendment. And – surprise! The Senators’ interpretation of “Under the Jurisdiction” is exactly what you wrote. See pages 2890 to2 897.
For only one example:
“ In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crimes against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the laws of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court, until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Sen. John Doolittle, The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, p. 2897
To me, this issue is one of "well, of course." Anyone with some knowledge of history and a good bit of common sense understands that.
The problem is progressive activists and judges that take common sense and twist it to mean whatever suits them, at the time. And when that no longer suits them, they will twist it again to fit the next progressive pursuit. (Hmmm, "Let's twist again, like we did last summer.")
We will hope that our current Supreme Court will deliver a common sense reading if and when they get the chance.
It certainly should be "well, of course". But you'd be surprised how many good people have been duped.
"...was meant to exclude those who owed allegiance to foreign nations".
This would mean, ipso facto, that all the Senators, Congressmen, billionaires, CEOs and VIPs that sport Israel passports have divided loyalties and would either lose US citizenship or at least have to choose. Good luck with that.
And if an exception is made for dual passport holders, either explicitly or in bureaucratic process, that would fly in the face of Trump's campaign promise to end the two-tiered justice system and uneven application of the law. Ruh roh.
If you have U.S. citizenship, you are by definition subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and our government doesn't especially care about any duties you might have to some other one: they will enforce our jurisdiction, full stop.
So no, dual citizenship doesn't affect this. What I wonder is why anyone would want it.
I hear ya. I wouldn't want it either. Taxes would be a bitch too.
But, "...was meant to exclude those who owed allegiance to foreign nations" is pretty clear. The US Constitution doesn't like divided loyalties. Sure, being subject to US jurisdiction and enforcement thereof is part of dual citizenship, but it's also clear that "owing allegiance to foreign nations" is in itself unacceptable, theoretically.
IMO this issue with regards to dual citizenship will almost certainly come up during a congressional and/or court fight by the groups wanting to scuttle Trump's efforts on this, as a lynch pin point or just to muddy the waters.
If a person is born in the United States, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States.
Section 1
"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I don't see any ambiguity here.
Even people who weren't born here, even those who are undocumented and therefore "illegal", are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or else there would be no basis by which to label them "illegal."
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
It's clear as day. You don't even include this language in your article, except in the context of "persons born to foreign diplomats." You claim the "jurisdiction thereof," language has been misinterpreted as meaning "anyone within the borders of the United States," but you offer no reasonable alternative interpretation. If a person who is not a citizen, or a permanent resident, commits, let's say, a murder, they would be punished according to laws which prohibit murder. If they were to commit theft, they would be charged with theft. So what principles are they being accused of violating? The laws of this country. That subjects them to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It feels to me as though you avoid confronting these issues because to evade them is much more convenient to your argument.
No, they aren't. Take the example of children of diplomats. They may be born here, but they are the children of foreign citizens subject to the laws of their own country. Their presence here is irrelevant to their birth, just as it is for an American born overseas.
Countless children were and are still born to American servicemen in Germany and Korea. But they are Americans, not Germans or Koreans.
Now if diplomats who are ALLOWED to be here can be subject to their home country's laws, how much more so a trespasser? Because literally every illegal alien is both a trespasser and a criminal, and the accident of their children's birth doesn't change the fact that they have no right to be here whatsoever.
You might as well say that if I steal your car it's now legally mine.
If you steal my car, and I can prove that in court, then it doesn't matter whether or not you're a citizen or a temporary resident or an illegal immigrant, you're going to be found guilty of that crime and punished under the laws which prohibit that act.
Your argument about diplomats is a distraction from the facts about the jurisdiction to which illegal immigrants are subject.
Even though you're right and they are trespassing and are criminals, they're criminal trespassers according to *checks notes*... US immigration laws.
So while diplomats are given immunity and are therefore not subject to the laws of their host nation, illegal immigrants are offered no such privilege.
You are dancing around the issue. In what reality are illegal immigrants not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the united states? By what unnatural principle are their children not subject to those same laws. Their children are born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
To interpret the amendment otherwise would require mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions.