| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Great Cultural Revolution |
| Birthright Citizenship Is A Pernicious Lie That's Destroying America |
| 2025-01-25 |
| [Federalist] On his first day in office, President Trump did the country a great service by issuing an executive order rejecting birthright citizenship as a requirement of the 14th Amendment. Whether Trump’s order will withstand the legal challenges remains to be seen (a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the order on Thursday). But the challenges themselves will force a reckoning on this issue, perhaps even at the Supreme Court. Such a reckoning is overdue. For far too long we have accepted without question the outlandish idea that every single person born on U.S. soil automatically becomes an American citizen, and that the 14th Amendment somehow mandates this suicidal policy. I’m not going to do a deep dive into the legal arguments for why the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause doesn’t grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil (for that, see here, here, here, here, here, and here). Suffice to say, it wasn’t until about the middle of the 20th century, amid massive upheavals in American life, that the notion of "birthright citizenship" was adopted — over and against how we had understood the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause since it was adopted in 1868. Briefly, the legal argument is this: to acquire citizenship, the 14th Amendment requires a person to be born in the United States and be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which means you owe your total allegiance to the United States alone and not some foreign power. In other words, the children of illegal immigrants, or those here on a temporary basis, were not American citizens. That’s what the drafters of the 14th Amendment said at the time and that’s how the Supreme Court understood it when ruling on 14th Amendment-related cases in the decades following ratification. Related: Birthright citizenship 01/24/2025 Trump's order against birthright citizenship blocked by Seattle judge Birthright citizenship 01/21/2025 Trump Pardons 1,500 J6'ers in Executive Order, and much more Birthright citizenship 01/03/2025 Analysis: Nearly 400K Anchor Babies Born in 2024, Exceeding Population of New Orleans |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #17 So are the Latinos who work above the table and Blacks who may not necessarily be Go Trump! but understand that this massive illegal influx directly negatively impacts their financial prospects. Basically, the Turnstile Jumpers. It is the same grocery aisle of those who hire out handicapped people to get the fast track at amusement parks with the connection I pay for it. According to The Law, if I want to buy a new pair of shoes for my children it is considered optional, but if I don't pay my taxes which pays for Anchor Babies, I get my door kicked down. That is immoral. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2025-01-25 14:30 |
| #16 Don’t assume that states like New Hampshire and Virginia won’t vote for it as well. Voters, unlike politicians, rely on common sense. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2025-01-25 14:10 |
| #15 There are enough Trump supporters in every state to get it on the ballot for the fall. It will be ratified by at those 31 immediately which starts the clock. Don’t assume that states like New Hampshire and Virginia won’t vote for it as well. If there is a Hamas style attack in the US in the meantime, it will pass unanimously. Also, only motivated people vote in off year elections. MAGA folks are highly motivated by immigration issues. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-01-25 13:28 |
| #14 "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution 31 states voted for Trump, you'd need 34. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-01-25 13:07 |
| #13 The EO will be struck down. Although there can be much debate about the intentions of the folks who enacted the 14th Amendment, there shouldn’t be much debate about the fact that the framers knew that situations would change and the Constitution should have an amendment process. In the current situation we have poor pregnant illegals invading our countries to birth citizens that immediately go on welfare. We also have rich pregnant foreigners visiting our country temporarily for the purposes of creating dual citizens that not or may not share American values. How many Soros’s and Bin Ladin’s qualify for US citizenship? Unfortunately, Congress is broken so the Amendment will have have to go to the states. More than likely, Trump already has one drafted. I expect to see it on ballots this fall. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2025-01-25 12:44 |
| #12 Bring along Austria and it's a GO ! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-01-25 12:18 |
| #11 Btw I do think the 14A is no longer adequate given the situation with millions of illegal immigrants. It should be amended, but the proper way. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-01-25 11:59 |
| #10 51st state? Politically better than Canada ;-) |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-01-25 11:55 |
| #9 Unfortunately, we have no Bavaria :-( |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-01-25 11:50 |
| #8 We seriously considered to stay and already had a path to citizenship. Then a business opportunity came up in Germany which was to good to ignore, and here we are. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-01-25 11:48 |
| #7 We lived, worked and employed people in the U.S. for quite some years. Legally, of course. Dein repatriierung, unser verlus. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-01-25 11:45 |
| #6 We lived, worked and employed people in the U.S. for quite some years. Legally, of course. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which means you owe your total allegiance to the United States alone and not some foreign power. From what I've read about the history of the 14A, that was a dissenting view. I'll have more on that subject later (my daughter sent me some sckientific research on this), starting with the Virginia citizenship statute of 1783 that said that "all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth." |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-01-25 11:40 |
| #5 Khanna: Birth Tourism Is ‘Some Extreme Example’ Not Worth Changing Constitution Over |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-01-25 11:13 |
| #4 Maher: Birthright Citizenship ‘Has Been Bastardized’ |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-01-25 11:12 |
| #3 I take it you weren't here illegally, or just on a week long vacation. That is, an invited residency. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2025-01-25 10:09 |
| #2 She sounds like a delight to parent, European Conservative, and a benefit to whichever of her countries she ends up settling in when she’s grown. All this argument is healthy mental exercise while we await the result of President Trump’s executive order — and probably a subsequent law passed by Congress after the Supreme Court rules against the EO as being an inadequate tool for the purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the end it will indeed require amending the 14th Amendment to get the Supreme Court to agree, and possibly it will take years to accomplish, to be finally consummated sometime in President JD Vance’s second term, or President Barron Trump’s. ;-) If so, at least the process is being started, because this is as important to resolve as Roe v. Wade, which also went untouched for generations until President Trump got the ball rolling. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2025-01-25 09:18 |
| #1 "the 14th Amendment requires a person to be born in the United States and be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which means you owe your total allegiance to the United States alone and not some foreign power." Nop it doesn't mean that. If this were so the framers wouldn't have to specifically mention diplomats and their families in the category of aliens who'd be excluded. All aliens would be included, and status of "illegal immigrant" did not exist back then. And yes, my daughter, who is a U.S. citizen, just sent me this: This interpretation would also exclude ALL (lawful) aliens in the U.S. It would even excluse U.S. citizens with double nationality (which she has), as there's some allegiance to foreign nations involved. It would even exclude naturalized American citizens who come from countries that don't allow you to renounce citizenship (i.e. Argentina). My daughter has read up on the framing of the 14th Amendment and she would give you an earful if you were to discuss this with her. If you want I can give you details. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-01-25 09:03 |