The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

[Jacobtm]

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:

“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”

Judge Richard Posner beileves that this does not require granting birthright citizenship to the children of any illegal immigrants, tourists, or other foreigners who happen to be in the U.S. while giving birth, noting that the original intent was to ensure citizenship for freed slaves.

In his 2003 opinion on Oforji v. Ashcroft her wrote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some more analysis from a recent Breitbart piece on the feasibility of this:

"If a constitutional conservative Republican wins the White House, and Republicans control both the House and Senate, then as part of finally dealing with immigration Congress could enact this change.

First must be a statute that effectively secures the border. A second statute should address citizenship. Then a third could be a statute creating a broad and generous guest-worker program.

Each bill would save the United States billions of dollars per year. Consequently, each could be passed in the Senate through what is called “reconciliation,” and therefore could not be filibustered and instead passed with 51 votes. With 218 House members, 50 senators (plus the vice president), and a willing president, all this could become law in 2017."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The 14th was written in an era when immigration was something generally seen as a positive good and there was essentially no such thing as illegal immigration because there were no quotas. Also, that exception for children of diplomats and foreign heads of state comes directly from the literal language of the 14th. Since diplomats and heads of state have diplomatic immunity, they certainly are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Granted, current law takes a narrow view of who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but a broader view could mean that illegal immigrants would be able to avail themselves of diplomatic immunity and be subject to nothing more than deportation if they broke our laws unless their country of origin chose to waive immunity. In all, I don't think we should try to change birthright citizenship without an amendment. The practical and political problems of such a change means that it needs broad support if it be done.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Words have a meaning, you know.

[Bojack Horseman]

"All persons born or naturalized" sounds pretty cut and dry to me. And no, "born" does not mean "conceived," Mike Huckabee.

[jimrtex]

The 14th was written in an era when immigration was something generally seen as a positive good and there was essentially no such thing as illegal immigration because there were no quotas. Also, that exception for children of diplomats and foreign heads of state comes directly from the literal language of the 14th. Since diplomats and heads of state have diplomatic immunity, they certainly are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Granted, current law takes a narrow view of who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but a broader view could mean that illegal immigrants would be able to avail themselves of diplomatic immunity and be subject to nothing more than deportation if they broke our laws unless their country of origin chose to waive immunity. In all, I don't think we should try to change birthright citizenship without an amendment. The practical and political problems of such a change means that it needs broad support if it be done.

Immigration was also essentially permanent. The parents would in time become naturalized, along with any foreign-born children.

I think the idea that "subject to the jurisdiction" means "may be crushed under the thumb of state power" is too narrow. There is a reciprocal obligation of allegiance. Foreign diplomats can not have allegiance to the United States without betraying their allegiance to the monarch or country they represent.

But persons who are short-term visitors, or are illegally present (no visa or overstaying) have no allegiance to the United States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd like to see a citation for that claim that immigration was more permanent back in the 19th century. There's always been a portion of those who came here intending to work for a while and then head home, some of whom later decided to stay. I can believe that the fraction who did so has changed over the decades, but I'm doubtful it's been a big change.

[jimrtex]

I'd like to see a citation for that claim that immigration was more permanent back in the 19th century. There's always been a portion of those who came here intending to work for a while and then head home, some of whom later decided to stay. I can believe that the fraction who did so has changed over the decades, but I'm doubtful it's been a big change.

They didn't have airplanes, they didn't have buses and cars. Trains and steamships were relatively new. It simply was not that easy to move back and forth, particularly if the reason for migrating in the first place is that you owned no land, and had no prospect of ever owning land.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd like to see a citation for that claim that immigration was more permanent back in the 19th century. There's always been a portion of those who came here intending to work for a while and then head home, some of whom later decided to stay. I can believe that the fraction who did so has changed over the decades, but I'm doubtful it's been a big change.

Return rates were very low for groups like Irish Famine Refugees and Russian Jews, who either had nothing to go back to couldn't go back due to religious persecution. They were much higher for Greeks and Italians, who usually came for work and often crossed the Atlantic multiple times.