Birthright Citizenship Candor
In an essay published by the New York Times, two law professors at Georgetown University and the University of Minnesota are affirming that President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is Constitutionally “stronger than his critics realize.”
The professors draw this conclusion primarily from 5 facts which Just Facts has published over the past 5 years but were routinely neglected by most legal scholars. Per the professors:
1) The 1898 Supreme Court precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark only applied to “children born here to permanent residents” and “never squarely held that children born to those illegally present are citizens.”
2) The “original purpose” of the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was to provide citizenship to “African Americans newly freed after the Civil War.”
3) The pivotal words of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, “SUBJECT TO the jurisdiction of the United States” don’t mean the same thing as “WITHIN” the jurisdiction of the United States.
4) The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” overtly “excluded the children of diplomats, Native Americans subject and with allegiance to tribal authority (this changed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) and members of invading armies.”
5) The English “common-law principle” of birthright citizenship on the basis of being “subject” to a “monarch” is inapplicable to the 14th Amendment.
The only vital fact the professors overlook is that Jacob Howard—the U.S. senator who created the 14th Amendment—introduced it in the Senate by stating that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” does not include the children of “foreigners, aliens,” and anyone who is not subject to the “full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States.” He emphasized that this means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
