The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Integral Citizenship" Accepted for Publication
The article will appear in the Texas Law Review.
Cassandra Burke Robertson and I have a new article up entitled "Integral Citizenship," which analyzes birthright citizenship in the U.S. Territories and is forthcoming in the Texas Law Review. This piece joins our previous articles on citizenship "(Un)Civil Denaturalization," "Litigating Citizenship," and "Inalienable Citizenship." The abstract is here:
Does the Constitution's promise of birthright citizenship to all born "in the United States" cover the United States Territories? Residents of the Territories have regularly sought judicial recognition of their equal birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, most recently in some prominent cases reaching federal appellate courts. When rejecting these claims, the courts have been unable or unwilling to articulate a unified theory of citizenship. Most problematically, judicial decisions have continued relying on the Insular Cases, whose reasoning over a century ago was explicitly based on a policy of racial exclusion.
We argue that the time has come for unambiguous judicial recognition that individuals born in the U.S. Territories form an integral part of the United States citizenry. This outcome is the only one that comports with both constitutional structure and historical practice. In analyzing why courts still deny claims for constitutional citizenship in the Territories, we explore the covert norms of belonging that shed light on the otherwise inexplicable logic of the courts' opinions. For example, there is no legal reason to treat the citizenship of those born in the U.S. Territories differently from that of those born in Washington, D.C. Nevertheless, an asymmetrical perception of belonging has flowed into the courts' construction of legal status, influencing whose citizenship is questioned and whose is assumed.
Although some judges and government officials have recently put forth new arguments that citizenship recognition would risk interfering with indigenous rights and endangering cultural practices, we argue that the opposite is more likely to be true. Attempting to retrofit a doctrine built on the political and social exclusion of racial minorities cannot offer durable cultural protection. By contrast, a unified national civic identity that recognizes the Territories as a fundamental part of the American fabric is more likely to foster the political will to protect indigenous rights. Recognizing the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of integral citizenship ensures that anyone whose birth location entails allegiance to the United States—be it the U.S. Territories or Washington, D.C.—is equally American.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems if we could do if for Puerto Rico, then we can do it for other territories.
"On March 2, 1917, Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act, under which Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory and Puerto Ricans were granted statutory citizenship, meaning that citizenship was granted by an act of Congress and not by the Constitution (thus it was not guaranteed by the Constitution)."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/puerto-ricans-become-u-s-citizens-are-recruited-for-war-effort#:~:text=Puerto%20Ricans%20become%20U.S.%20citizens%2C%20are%20recruited%20for,U.S.%20citizenship%20to%20the%20inhabitants%20of%20Puerto%20Rico.
I don’t think anybody disputes that Congress can make residents of USterritories citizens if it wants to. The question here is whether the Constitution itself makes them so.
Were they born before or after where ever became a US territory?
People alive when it became a US territory wouldn't automatically get US citizenship.
On the other hand, what rational argument is there that section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to US territories?
Because it is specifically limited to persons born in "the United States"?
We do not want any more shithole Democrat voters, which is the real intent of this article.
The idea that aboriginals are not citizens unless granted citizenship by Congress comes with aboriginal sovereignty which persists unless extinguishes by Congress. Once we accept that Indians aren’t citizens (unless made so by Congress), and it’s in the Constitution’a text, the rest follows.
"covert norms of belonging that shed light on the otherwise inexplicable logic" "asymmetrical perception of belonging has flowed into the courts' construction"
This is bad writing.
Common sense says you cant break law - sneak across a border, drop a kid and therefore they are citizens entitled to welfare/support of the existing citizens. Put that to a vote and it will get less support than another Iraq war.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of citizenship of people born in US Territories.