[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Constitution Doesn’t Mandate Birthright Citizenship
Source: Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... andate-birthright-citizenship/
Published: Aug 18, 2015
Author: Ken Klukowski
Post Date: 2015-08-18 15:04:10 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 24341
Comments: 115

Parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, but the part that launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens—does not.

The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.

Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.

That’s not the law. It has never been the law.

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?

No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As captured in the movie Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865, sending it to the states for ratification.

In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “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.”

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

Media confusion on this issue is puzzling, because the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed the issue. (Just none of them were put on camera to explain it.) Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship limited to conservatives. Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:

We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship….

A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it….

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.

It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it. If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans. There is no court precedent for that, and the congressional and ratification debates from the Fourteenth Amendment do not reveal a clear answer.

Trump could rescind President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away. And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.

Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens. And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported. That would certainly impact the pace of deportation.

Donald Trump’s position on immigration has changed drastically from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion. He has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, and some voters do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.

But none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal. While parts of it may face legal challenges, denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

Ken Klukowski is legal editor of Breitbart News and a practicing constitutional attorney, and explains birthright citizenship in Chapter 12 of Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

#2. To: cranky (#0)

Constitution Doesn’t Mandate Birthright Citizenship

I think it does. Seems pretty clear on the plain language.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter.

When the Supreme Court does rule, 4 out of 5 Justices will agree with me. So, will Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas or Scalia, or any one of them, also agree? Probably.

My bet would be that the Supreme Court would rule 9-0 that the 14th Amendment means what it says. They would explain, simply, that a child born in United States territory to parents who were not diplomats with immunity are US citizens by definition, are US citizens, as they are all subject to US jurisdiction at the time of their birth.

I could be wrong, of course, but this has been the standard juridical understanding of the 14th Amendment for a century and a half, so I can't see the Supreme Court deciding otherwise.

The Constitution will have to be amended.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-18   15:35:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

"They would explain, simply, that a child born in United States territory to parents who were not diplomats with immunity are US citizens by definition, are US citizens, as they are all subject to US jurisdiction at the time of their birth."

A woman who is a Mexican citizen illegally crosses the border, has a child, and you say that child is a citizen of the United States.

18 years from now, that child receives a draft notice from the U.S. military. He's going to war. He may die.

So he says, "Hold on there. My mother is a Mexican citizen. My father is a Mexican citizen. Yes, I was born in the U.S., but I consider myself to be a Mexican citizen with Mexican parents. So take your draft notice and shove it."

No? He can't do that?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-18   17:34:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#4)

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-08-18   18:26:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)

[Hans A. von Spakovsky at FR] Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

No. Senator Lyman Trumbull did not say that. That is ad lib crap. And it would not make any difference had Trumbull said it.

Anyone who thinks tourists in the USA are not subject to its jurisdiction would think otherwise if a tourist took a rifle and shot a bunch of people. If not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, the tourist could not be prosecuted or punished. They could be deported.

Senator Jacob Howard drafted and introduced the citizenship clause to the 14th Amendment. Prior to that, it had no citizenship clause. His role in that part of the 14th is slightly larged than that of Trumbull.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" has nothing to do with political allegiance of the parents. It has to do with the child being subject to the laws and courts of the United States.

There is no court holding that agrees with this nonsense. There's a bunch that do not. Among the "critics" who disagree with von Spakovsky are various iterations of the U.S. Supreme Court.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-18   19:06:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#10)

"Anyone who thinks tourists in the USA are not subject to its jurisdiction would think otherwise if a tourist took a rifle and shot a bunch of people."

Can we draft tourists into our military? Hey, they're subject to our jurisdiction while they're here, right?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-18   20:08:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#14)

Tourists subject to our jurisdiction are not CITIZENS. But COULD we pass a law and draft them? Well, sure. We could pass a law to dissect them and eat them. The Germans had laws that turned Jewish tourists into slaves and then soap, so why not turn tourists into soldiers. Give them guns and grenades and heavy weapons and send them out there to protect the interests of the country that dragooned them. Yeah! THAT'LL show 'em! Oh, wait...

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-18   20:42:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#17)

so why not turn tourists into soldiers.

I am afraid established precedent precedes your question by about 160 years. Good ol' Honest Abe (the guy that chopped down a cheery tree and could not tell a lie) pulled Irish "visitors" right off the boats in New York harbor and elsewhere and immediately enlisted them in the US Army to defend the Glory of the Union by murdering the Southern enemy.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-08-18   21:24:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: buckeroo (#25)

He won.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-18   21:27:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13, buckeroo, redleghunter (#26)

Supreme Court will strike down attacks on birth right citizen .

I agree with that statement although it is my view that the 14th amendment covers to children of LEGAL immigrants and NOT the children of illegals. Their children were put under the anchor baby umbrella by the 1965 immigration act. But SCOTUS would most likely declare a repeal of that provision unconstitutional after they examine the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution.

tomder55  posted on  2015-08-18   22:32:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 28.

#29. To: tomder55 (#28)

But SCOTUS would most likely declare a repeal of that provision unconstitutional after they examine the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution.

It will NEVER happen with a weak SCOTUS; these nine dressed upped black robed klouwns go along with any demanding President that goes against cultural and social instinct to include allowing the construct of "marriage" to be mandated by federal law, where none exists at all. These were states rights issues.

And SCOTUS shall use 0bama's "laws" as a precedent for "their" further decisions, assuming they permit a court review.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-08-18 22:38:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: tomder55 (#28)

I agree with you. IF there were a "god of the Constitution" lurking out there, with an actual opinion of what the words "MEAN", in a transcendental, absolute sense, the divine INTENT of those words, so to speak, then I'm sure that birth right citizenship would not "mean" the children of illegals.

But the Constitution is just a set of loose rules for political cricket, they're not Scripture and there's no constitutional god out there holding the "true" meaning. It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and it means whatever the various players in the game actually do and claim (and believe) is "correct".

The Supreme Court has a very long and very important set of jurisdictional rules. The whole concept of "jurisdiction" grew and grew through layer after layer of court decisions over the centuries. Why? Because if the US has "jurisdiction", that means that the Supreme Court can hear the case, which means they have power over the outcome.

The Supreme Cpurt has been an eager beaver over the years at finding jurisdiction.

That is why going to the Court with a political argument, that it should dramatically reduce the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" so as to allow the politicians to "get at" the anchor babies without having to amend the Constitution is simply a no-fly zone.

Congress and the President will be asking the Supreme Court to carve away at the basis of its own power, and to claim that it does not itself have the power to judge cases that concern illegal aliens. For that is precisely what "No US jurisdiction" would MEAN under two centuries of Supreme Court precedent. It would mean that the Supremes were powerless over a case.

The Supremes will NEVER rule that they are powerless over average people of whatever nationality within the United States. Never.

The whole argument turns on jurisdiction, but for the Supreme Court to rule that there is no jurisdiction would mean that the Supreme Court would have no power over tens of millions of people in America.

Once that is understood, is is clear why the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 that the US DOES have jurisdiction over those people, and that therefore their babies are citizens.

To ask the Supreme Court to rule "No jurisdiction" would be akin to asking the Congress to relinquish its ability to make laws regarding some important subject matter. It ain't happening, no matter HOW much the people want it.

Fact is, if the people REALLY want it that badly, they'll have the supermajorities necessary to amend the Constitution. But they don't. And they won't.

That is why birth right citizenship is a terrible pace to pitch a battle. It's doomed before the first shot is fired.

The place to fight this is at the border, with walls, surveillance and redeployment of military forces from abroad to the US.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-18 22:46:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: tomder55, Vicomte13, buckeroo, redleghunter (#28)

Their children were put under the anchor baby umbrella by the 1965 immigration act.

I believe this is backwards. The 1965 Act put the alien parents under the anchor baby umbrella. It is the baby who is the qualifying U.S. immediate relative citizen.

The 1965 Act could be repealed or amended by another piece of legislation.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-19 03:51:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com