The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
Immigration once again has become central to the Republican presidential race.
“Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced June 26 a strategy for “getting the job done,” which he says former President Donald Trump, the 2024 GOP frontrunner, failed to do. DeSantis’ plan would include an attempt to end birthright citizenship in the United States as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
“Trump vowed to end birthright citizenship through an executive order in 2016 when he was elected and has since renewed his promise for the 2024 campaign. . . .
“What does the 14th Amendment say about people born in the United States?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is known for several things, but the Citizenship Clause is in its first sentence. “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 says. In the modern-day parlance, it means that anyone born on United States soil is automatically a citizen. . . .
“Has birthright citizenship ever been legally tested?
“Yes, it was the focus of the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
“Ark, the U.S.-born son of Chinese parents, was refused re-entry to the country after temporarily visiting China under the pretense of him not being a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. .
“The court was tasked with deciding whether or not he was considered a citizen by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a 6-2 ruling, the court determined that because he was born on U.S. soil and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” Ark was in fact, a citizen.
“The issue came up again in the Supreme Court’s 1982 Plyler v. Doe case involving a Texas education law that allowed the state to withhold education funds for educating the children of undocumented immigrants.
“The high court reasoned that undocumented immigrants are people ‘in any ordinary sense of the term’ and are consequently afforded 14th Amendment protections.” — Is there Birthright Citizenship on the USA? GOP Candidates Want to End It. What to Know, Allie Feinberg, Arizona Republic, 6/2723 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: This article gives the impression that birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is a policy solidly affirmed by the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Thus, supposedly, the only way to end birthright citizenship is to amend the Constitution. These claims almost certainly are false.
The 14th Amendment says that one born in the U.S. must also be subject to American “jurisdiction.” What does this mean? Sen. Layman Trumbull, a sponsor of the Amendment, explained: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Subsequent Supreme Court rulings upheld this view. The Slaughter House Cases of 1873 held that “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” In Elk v. Wilkins2(1884) the Court ruled that an American Indian, though born in the U.S., was not a citizen because of his tribal affiliation. To be a citizen, according to that ruling, one must owe the U.S. “a direct and immediate allegiance.”
In 1898, however, the Court seems to take a somewhat different stance when it held that a man born in the U.S. to subjects of China was a citizen. Perhaps to establish the allegiance of these parents, the Court noted that they had a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”
Now the key question arises with the issue of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. Can any of these foreign nationals who break our laws conceivably have allegiance of any kind to our country? Truly, they don’t, so therefore birthright citizenship should not apply to them. The statement this article cites from Plyler v. Doe was a dictum, a judicial opinion which carries no legal authority.
It is true that a presidential executive order would be insufficient to end birthright citizenship. Such an order most certainly would be challenged in court and ultimately go to the Supreme Court. That would be a good thing. The High Court would then have the opportunity to settle clearly the issue of birthright citizenship.