The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Integral Citizenship" Published in the Texas Law Review
Do individuals born in the U.S. Territories have a constitutional right to citizenship?
I am happy to announce that the latest article by Cassandra Burke Robertson and myself, "Integral Citizenship", is now out in the centennial volume of the Texas Law Review. It joins our previous publications on denaturalization and other forms of citizenship loss in the NYU Law Review (2019), Vanderbilt Law Review (2020), and North Carolina Law Review (2021). Here is the final version of the abstract:
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
Wow. Kudos for the authors for tackling that topic. I've read articles before about the history and the current state of those citizenship laws. It's hard to imagine a worse tangle.
If ever there was a case calling for repeal of all old laws (specific to the topic) and replacement with a new law, this is it.
The thing to keep in mind is that it's not the role of any judge to "repeal" old laws or make new laws, only to interpret existing ones.
Sounds good to me. I do have a question what specifically it means when you say, "anyone whose birth location entails allegiance to the United States." What meaning does, "entails," convey? Does that have objectively resolvable manifestation?
The specific example that comes to mind are those born in American Samoa, who are American Nationals, not citizens.
Yes, birth in either American Montana or American Samoa entails allegiance to the United States.
In this context, is, "entails," in some way different than, "owes?" Or am I seeing some distinction, like for, "entails," allegiance gets mildly presumed, but for "owes," we are looking at native allegiance redoubled by some sort of oath?
This is horse shit. It may or may not be a great idea to automatically grant citizenship to persons born in US territories. But that's not what 14th amendment requires according to its original meaning.
Going by the Congressional debates, they clearly excluded Native Americans who maintained tribal affiliations, not on the basis of race whatsoever (as a minority of Congressmen might have liked), but on the basis that they were subjects of a quasi-foreign entity, and thus were not subject to the "full and complete" jurisdiction of the US as Howard put it, or as Trumbull put it, "They are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States."
The issue wasn't even their presence in the territories when being born. Trumbull said that Native Americans being born in the territories were similarly situated to Mexicans being born in Mexico. Rather, the issue was their allegiance to a quasi-foreign entity. A Native American who permanently domiciled outside the territory and did not maintain tribal affiliation would by their voluntary choice and the voluntary acquiescence of the US, become subject to the "full and complete" jurisdiction of the US. But if they were just sojourning through the US, they were not.
Yes. A territory is not a state. There could be good reasons for not making the territory a state.
Indeed. Often unincorporated territories are not considered part of the union for various reasons, including that they may be removed from the union.
One example here is the Panama Canal Zone, an unincorporated territory of the United States. By keeping the Panama Canal Zone unincorporated, it allowed the capability for the zone to be reunified with Panama, which eventually occurred.
If the Panama Canal Zone was incorporated, then it would have become far more difficult legally to "give it back". It would've been part of the United States as an integral part...like Florida...
In what way are the territories "quasi-foreign entities" where the people born thereto are allied to foreign sovereigns? Unlike the Indian tribes, the territories are exclusively American lands, at least in a legal sense. The people there owe no foreign allegiances. In that way, they are no different from the people living or born in DC, who have always been entitled to birthright citizenship.
Good point and I might have overstated the conclusion; I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of current "US territories." All I'm saying is that the original meaning of the 14th amendment did not guarantee citizenship to everyone born in US "territory." I know that because the Native American tribal lands were also considered part of US territory at that time. (Moreover, as a side note, even if they were born in a State but belonged to a tribe, they would not be citizens because they were subject to a foreign power even though quasi-foreign, and that is in direct contradiction to the prevailing view of "birthright citizenship" that many people try to claim is beyond any dispute today).
If you have US territory but no aspect of independence or quasi foreign or sovereign character, that may be a more difficult question. I think the territories count as being "in the United States." But arguably you might lack "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now" (in the words of Jacob Howard) if you can't be drafted, serve on juries, hold office, etc.
You also think the 14A doesn't provide birthright citizenship to anyone, though.
Everyone except the children of diplomats, invading soldiers, and Indians. There was no dispute about this at the time of the 14th amendment; attempts to rewrite birthright citizenship are 20th century notions.
Considering the 2A was drafted specifically to protect the RKBA for residents in DC and federal territories…I would argue that might give them a stronger claim tk citizenship that residents in states!?!
It's more complated than that.
Everybody sits around gloatgiggling (what Lando Calrisian's little pal did when they shot out of the fire tunnel) about how noble and great the concept is, but it's not that simple. Some don't want it, to be free of some of the constitutional constraints, and other reasons full American brings along with it.
How much of this is prep work for more statehoods (a noble thing to be sure), but driven by ignoble political thuggery to gain two more senators?
Just like having a liberal immigration policy is great because America is the shining city, come here and live free from dictatorship and corruption, or because in a free society, the more the better, neither of which are the actual motivating factor, which is, to roll the domestic electorate so you can continue getting in the way of business for corruption reasons, the exact opposite of why reason 2 is a great reason.
I love liberal immigration for reasons listed, but, until 10 years ago, Democrats were in lockstep against it, with Trump. (It's been shown how asinine Democrats celebrating Ceasar Chavez day is when he was against it because it undercut union wages.)
Nevermind. There's lying and elections to win, to wreck things as you gain tainted wealth.
Democrats were not anti-immigration in 2012.
And one can thinks someone is a hero without agreeing with every policy they liked.
Check whether this policy is good, don't rely on slippery slope arguments and speculation about secret agendas.
I don’t see how this follows. People born in territories outside the states and DC are, in essence, Indians. It’s a constitutional category. Congress can make them cotizens, but it doesn’t have to.
The category may be ideologically problematic. But it’s a valid constitutional category and it’s for Congress to decide whether to anolish it or not.
The constitution permits us to have what are in essence colonies. May or may not be a good thing. But it’s a permitted thing.
"Congress can make them cotizens, but it doesn’t have to."
It already did. https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/#:~:text=Indian%20Citizenship%20Act,barred%20Native%20Americans%20from%20voting.
There is no "in essence" Indians. Indians are not a type of classification that others can be analogous to; they are a specific and unique category. Either one is actually an Indian or one isn't.
And, no, the racist Insular Cases were wrong. The Philippines were, and Puerto Rico and American Samoa and Guam and the USVI are, territories just like the Dakotas or the Northwest Territory and the Mexican Cession were before they were admitted as states.
"There is no "in essence" Indians. "
But if people native to US territories did qualify as "Indians" (I agree with you that they don't), wouldn't they be covered by the Indian Citizenship Act? If so, ReaderY's argument fails either way.
Yet another problem admission of a few more states would solve.
Douglass Commonwealth, Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico . . . that would be a great start toward a better United States of America!
One of the issues Irina doesn't really get at is the status of incorporated versus unincorporated territories of the US, and why and how they exist.
Incorporated territories are ultimately destined to become states (or parts of states) and integral parts on the United States. That means they will "not" be allowed their independence...anymore than the South was allowed to leave the union. As such the full rights of the Constitution...including citizenship and not being allowed to set different tariff rates...are placed upon them.
Unincorporated territories are more nebulous. They may stay as part of the US. Or they may leave. Notable examples are the Philippines, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa. Being unincorporated means the full rights of the Constitution don't necessarily apply. Different minimum wages can be set from the rest of the country. Different tariffs. Different citizenship laws.
To an extent, the beliefs of the leaders and people of American Samoa should play a role in whether they should have birthright citizenship. And apparently American Samoa's leaders and government are OPPOSED to birthright citizenship.
Now Irina may have good motives. But shouldn't she consider what the leaders and people of American Samoa want? Self Determination and all. And if they don't WANT automatic US birthright citizenship....shouldn't we respect their wishes?
https://apnews.com/article/american-samoa-cultures-government-and-politics-ecb28f949187601ae97e65ae2d7ff7de
Or for a shorter bit.
Why force U.S. birthright citizenship down American Samoa's throat by judicial fiat when the government of American Samoa writes petitions saying they don't want it. Does Self Determination mean nothing?
Why do it by Judicial Fiat, when every single previous expansion of citizenship to a territory has been done by Congress?
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/wethepeopleproject/pages/23/attachments/original/1649486922/American_Samoa__Opposition_to_Cert._Petition.pdf?1649486922
And what criteria, exactly, determine if the "birth location entails allegiance to the United States"? What is the specific test that a court can apply to determine whether American Samoa is on one side or the other of that line? What happens if one applies that test to any of the many other cases intermediate between "a state of the Union" and "territory where the United States has no power or authority"?
The core problem with this article is that it spends quite a bit of time waving the bloody shirt of racism, and none whatsoever on actually articulating a way to actually distinguish what places are and are not "in the United States" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Oh, I think it very clearly articulates: there is no basis for such a distinction in the constitution.
Reads to me like they did all they could within the law,