The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
More on Birthright Citizenship and Undocumented Immigrants
Legal scholars Amanda Frost and Paul Gowder have both published notable new articles on the subject.

The incoming Trump administration plans to deprive children of undocumented immigrants of birthright citizenship. As I explained in a recent article in Just Security, this would be a blatant violation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone "born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." There is no exception for children of illegal migrants. Legal scholars Amanda Frost (Univ. of Virginia) and Paul Gowder (Northwestern), have recently published excellent articles on the same topic: Frost in the Atlantic (there is a paywall), and Gowder in the UnPopulist. They effectively refute the various specious rationales offered for claims that children of undocumented immigrants aren't entitled to birthright citizenship because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
Among other things, they poke holes in the idea that these children aren't entitled to citizenship because their parents' entry into the US did not have "consent." I would add that nothing in the Citizenship Clause requires "consent," and that no real-world government genuinely enjoys the consent of the people it rules. Moreover, to the extent we care about consent, depriving children who have no other home of the right to live in the US would itself be an egregious nonconsensual exercise of government power.
In my Just Security article, I pointed out that denying birthright citizenship to the undocumented would in various ways go against the central objective of the Citizenship Clause which was to ensure citizenship rights for blacks denied them by the Supreme Court's ruling in the notorious Dred Scott case. Frost highlights another way in which this would be true:
In a recent law-review article, the legal scholars Gabriel Chin and Paul Finkelman explained that for decades, Africans were illegally brought to the United States as slaves even after Congress outlawed the international slave trade in 1808, making them the "illegal aliens" of their day. The nation was well aware of that problem. Government efforts to shut down the slave trade and deport illegally imported enslaved people were widely reported throughout the years leading up to the Civil War. Yet no one credible, then or now, would argue that the children of those slaves were to be excluded from the citizenship clause—a constitutional provision intended to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford by giving U.S. citizenship to the 4.5 million Black people then living in the United States.
If children of people who entered the US illegally are not entitled to birthright citizenship, that logic would have applied to the children of illegally transported slaves.
There are many more good points in both articles. People interested in this issue should read both.
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
Has anyone defined "subject to the jurisdiction"?
Yes.
If undocumented aliens (and their U. S. born offspring) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then how can they be deported? Deportation necessarily involves exercise of federal jurisdiction -- as does criminal prosecution for unlawful entry.
You misunderstood the use of the term “jurisdiction”in the Citizenship clause. Illegal aliens are not subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the US such that they owe sovereign allegiance. They are subject to territorial jurisdiction and can be ejected from the country like any other trespasser or invader.
Illegal aliens are subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the US such that they owe sovereign allegiance. Just like legal aliens.
Thanks for the help. That comment is so demonstrably wrong on its face that it serves to strengthen the argument to end the birthright citizenship error.
Illegal aliens owe sovereign allegiance to their home countries, not the US. Otherwise, members of an invading army could be tried for treason on a theory that the minute they crossed the US border, they magically owed a duty of loyalty to the US. Neither US law nor the law of nations has ever worked that way.
I agree it would be strange to prosecute foreign troops for treason.
But it would be even more strange for someone like Adam Yahiye Gadahn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn) to get off the hook for treason by having the Taliban declare him an Afghan citizen or even a Taliban military officer.
And would be extremely strange if Iran could get Donald Trump disqualified from office by unilaterally declaring him to be an Iranian citizen.
And finally, it would be sickeningly strange to tell Jewish refugees in 1940 that they owed "allegiance" to Germany and then treat them accordingly.
My points are:
- A person having allegiance to a country, and a country claiming that person's allegiance, are two different things.
- Under no conditions should we be allowing another country or its laws to determine who can have US citizenship. That should be completely and solely up to us.
Sickening, yes — but not, unfortunately, strange. Aspiring Jewish refugees throughout the west were frequently looked on with suspicion as potentially disloyal German citizens during WW2.
Illegal aliens are not members of an invading army. Members of an invading army are an entirely separate category.
Can an illegal alien be imprisoned for violating non-immigration-related US law?
Where did you get this "territorial jurisdiction" argument from? It's outrageously stupid. You need to send it back for a refund. It's a misapplication of jargon you clearly don't understand. That's not at all what "territorial jurisdiction" means.
You've made that argument before, but it's wrong. Deportation does not require jurisdiction; we can expel diplomats even though they are unquestionably excluded from the subject-to-the-jurisdiction category. Now prosecution, yes.
Wait -- what do you think "expel" means in the context of diplomats? Hint: it doesn't mean anything like "deport."
I think it means something very much like deport. Obviously we tend not to use law enforcement to round up unacceptable diplomats and physically ship them out of the country, but that's a matter of international relations, not law.
Your usage is entirely correct. The present international protocols gives an expelled diplomat a reasonable amount of time (as announced by the sovereign) to leave voluntarily, before becoming subject to the full "jurisdiction thereof", when they can be forcibly deported, or liable to any criminal or civil penalty.
Expelled here is basically quit before you're fired.
Exactly. The way it works is, we revoke their immunity, and then deport them. Usually they leave voluntarily upon the mere threat.
not guilty is right. You need jurisdiction before you can deport.
If illegal aliens (not "undocumented aliens") are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then why can't they be drafted or forced to serve on jury duty?
Green card holders don't serve on juries either, yet they are subject to the jurisdiction.
The only men between 18 and 26 exempt from registering for the draft are temporary visa holders. Men who do not have such a visa, including those unlawfully present, are required to register.
They can be! Why did you think otherwise?
"Has anyone defined 'subject to the jurisdiction'?"
Yes. SCOTUS opined in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 682 (1898):
The Court there elaborated:
Id., at 702.
So, you've got at least three approaches laid out to accomplish most of Trump's goal:
1. Declare that the citizenry of other countries are "tribes", and properly treated as the indians. (Then the only faction of non-citizens present in the US large enough to matter.) Members of the Honduran 'tribe' don't get birthright citizenship for their children, any more than members of the Cherokee did before their forcible naturalization.
2. Declare that illegal aliens, by virtue of entering (or remaining in) the country contrary to our laws, are alien enemies. Trump might be able to do this as an exercise of Presidential power.
3. Grant all illegal aliens diplomatic status. Sure, you couldn't try them for crimes, but you certainly could still eject them.
1. If they're members of a tribe, they get to stay in the US.
2. In order to do this, Trump would have to name each individual. Maybe, but doubtful. Also doubtful it would work -- it's not enough to be an "alien enemy," they have to be living in an occupied area, which means they're out of reach of US law enforcement.
3. The US can't "eject" diplomats. We can threaten to revoke their status and hope that makes them leave, or we can work with their home country to have them recalled. Neither of those is effective against immigrants.
All of these seeming Catch-22s are by design, in case it wasn't obvious. Birthright citizenship extends to everyone under US jurisdiction. Taking away jurisdiction implies taking away our ability to deport.
I think all of these are hokey approaches, but as I've remarked before, an awful lot of current jurisprudence is no worse. So much shit has been thrown at the wall and stuck that at this point you can hardly see the wall anymore.
Your personal adherence to BrettLaw and Constitution in Exile does not make it somehow less mockable when you suggest stuff even you admit is bullshit.
Live by "If the Court says the Constitution means that, the Constitution means that!", die by "If the Court says the Constitution means that, the Constitution means that!". You can't be a strict constructionist AND a legal realist at the same time, pick one.
You made a post explicitly full of stuff you don't think the Constitution allows.
You aren't living by any kind of principle these days.
It's not living by principle to acknowledge that arguments you disagree with might be advanced and potentially win?
What kind of weird principles do you live by, anyway?
You think the Constitutional end runs you offered could win?
Again, because you don’t agree with the Court doesn’t mean you can make up anything you want and not have the crappiness pointed out.
We absolutely can and do eject diplomats.
"US expels 2 Russian diplomats"
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/06/politics/us-expels-russian-diplomats/index.html
Did you even read your own article? We did it by "declaring them persona non grata" and then they left on their own.
I mean, go ahead and try that with illegal immigrants if you want to.
We do try that with illegal immigrants.
Yes, of course diplomats leave on their own, but again: that's a matter of international relations. If they refused to leave, they'd be hauled off, not told, "Oh, we don't have any jurisdiction over you, so nothing we can do."
They'd be hauled off once they were no longer diplomats.
Diplomatic immunity of course has force of law and of course bars us from forcibly rounding them up. Otherwise the NYPD would be jailing UN delegates all the time. They don't care about "international relations."
Diplomatic immunity is a matter of federal law; that's why the NYPD can't "jail UN delegates."
Yeah. That's what I've been saying. You've been saying it's not a matter of law but just some sort of international custom. Glad to see you've come to your senses.
To summarize, you before:
Obviously we tend not to use law enforcement to round up unacceptable diplomats and physically ship them out of the country, but that's a matter of international relations, not law.
You after:
Diplomatic immunity is a matter of federal law; that's why the NYPD can't "jail UN delegates."
No. You're confusing federal and state governments here. The state governments can't haul diplomats to jail because of the Supremacy Clause. The federal government can forcibly expel diplomats — because diplomatic immunity does not apply to that issue — but chooses not to because of international relations.
So you think a state government could choose to forcibly expel diplomats?
No. Because that, too, is a matter of federal law. It's all federal law. To the extent the federal government has "chosen" to "respect international relations," those choices are reflected in federal law.
1. That’s just dumb and completely contrary to the original meaning of the Constitution. “Indian tribe” meant a very specific people under the Constitution. And the Commerce Clause makes clear that there’s a difference between the Indians and foreigners.
2. More plausible, but still a stretch. Illegal aliens are hardly a hostile occupying force as that concept was understood at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.
3. This is a pretty bad understanding of diplomatic status and immunity. And there’s no limiting principle here. Why couldn’t that also be done regarding groups of American citizens? “Mormons are hereby given diplomatic status, and therefore their children are no longer citizens if born in the United States.”
Sorry for repeating what you said. Slow writer.
When someone dreams up loopholes that could, in principle, make a whole section of the Constitution unenforceable, I tend to assume they're just hostile to the Constitution and have no intention of obeying it. Unless they state some limiting principle rooted in the text or original public meaning, rather than a limit temporarily and baselessly conceded for the purposes of selling the currently proposed violation.
So what's your constitution-based limiting principle on Plan 1? Would it, in your opinion, be constitutional for a president to declare any definable group of people as a tribe? If you think the group has to be non-citizens, what text are you using to limit the president's tribal-declaration power?
Because AFAICT the only constitutional clause that says children of citizens are guaranteed to be citizens is the same exact 14th Amendment you say can be bypassed by mere declaration.
Same question on Plan 3. Can he say that Democrats are diplomats and then deport their children? Why not?
Declare that the citizenry of other countries are "tribes",
Well, ISTM that words have meanings, and the citizens of Honduras, or France, are not in fact tribes.
Q: How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?
A: Four. You can the tail a leg if you want to, but that doesn't make it one.
What makes a peaceful farm worker, who intends no harm to the US, an "enemy?" Are you trying to grant Trump the power to change the meaning of ordinary English words?
Is it even possible to declare, arbitrarily, that an immigrant is a diplomat? What country would they represent, who appointed them? Wouldn't be up to that country to decide who theor diplomatic representative are?
In short, these are absolutely looney ideas, which only someone with an incredible hatred of illegal immigrants could suggest, especially one who normally insists on a super-strict reading of the Constitution.
(Attributed to Abraham Lincoln)
It's the business about the horse that is attributed to Lincoln, not the rest.
Sorry to be sloppy.
"Q: How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?
A: Four. You can the tail a leg if you want to, but that doesn't make it one."
Yeah, and you can call my backyard garden "interstate commerce", but that doesn't make it so.
Oh, wait, the courts think it does...
Like I said above, it's not that these are good arguments, it's just that they're no worse than other arguments that won and are established precedent today.
They are atrocious. You should try hard to get over your obsession with Wickard. It was a correct decision.
I agree they're atrocious. So was Wickard. You may like Wickard, but it was still a deliberately awful misreading of the interstate commerce clause.
Wickard was a terrible decision, but Brett misunderstands it. It did not rely on calling something interstate commerce that wasn't. Non-lawyers, like Brett, routinely think law is just word games. It's the same way that the sovcits think they can avoid paying income taxes or using driver's licenses through magic incantations. Wickard relied on the notion that the power to regulate interstate commerce was broad enough to permit the regulation of activities that affected interstate commerce.
You're right, but only technically. The interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and JUST interstate commerce, nothing else.
So the Court saying, "You can regulate anything that hypothetically might in aggregate have an affect on interstate commerce" is, functionally, expanding the definition of "interstate commerce". They turned the power to regulate the commerce itself into the power to regulate the wind and the waves, the weather, when the Sun rises and sets, and my backyard garden.
In a legal system where that is considered legitimate, the approaches I outlined are going to be equally legitimate, if the Court decides to embrace them, and never mind that they're not faithful to the original meaning of the clause. Nobody who defends Wickard is entitled to talk about the original meaning of clauses.
You forgot "in my personal opinion" before that statement.
That's because the text of the interstate commerce clause isn't an opinion.
It's one thing to use the N&P clause to demand that manufacturers put serial numbers on a product that might typically be shipped to another state, so that regulations concerning that shipping are enforceable.
It's quite another thing when the regulation's purpose is itself to regulate something not interstate commerce, rather than simply incidentally affecting something not interstate commerce.
If the federal government had demanded that Filburn segregate wheat on his farm for internal use from wheat to be sold in another state, or to use a distinguishable variety, they'd have had a case. As it is, they were limiting him from growing wheat for his own use because it would reduce the amount of wheat he might otherwise hypothetically have bought from another state.
The objective wasn't to regulate interstate commerce AT ALL. It was to regulate the growing of wheat, period. The law being enforce didn't regulate interstate commerce at all, it regulated the growing of wheat regardless of involvement in interstate commerce.
What is Necessary and Proper for carrying into execution regulations of interstate commerce is a matter of opinion.
Your interpretation of it is.
Well done.
It did not rely on any cutesy word game. It did not declare that Filburn's activities were actually interstate commerce. It simply said that the scope of the interstate commerce clause is broader than that.
Right -- by torturing the English language into the results-oriented notion that "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" somehow also means "regulate stuff that is not commerce at all and that all happens inside a single state."
It's cutesy word games all the way down.
And it meant that there was no limiting principle to what the federal government could define as interstate commerce. Under the Wickard standard, as the Court that promulgated it meant it, no activity was beyond the commerce clause if the federal government chose to regulate it, because any and all activities can be commerce, no matter their scope or geography. It's quite literally the butterfly effect.
The only reason that may change going forward is present/future courts chipping away at that initial understanding. Not because the actual decision, as the Court the rendered it meant it, allows for anything otherwise. No one can say with the straight face that New Dealers thought or intended anything otherwise. The only way their theories and programs worked is if nothing was beyond their control. Hence the need to punish Filburn for not complying.
That Lincoln story is now considered offensive to transgender activists.
Wong Kim Ark specifically held that a child born in the US to Chinese parents with permanent domicile and residence in the US was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. As Prof. Eastman has observed, it is a mistake to read the case more broadly as conferring birthright citizenship to the children of those not subject to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of the US, which would be contrary to the text, history, and theory of the Citizenship Clause and permit the Court to intrude on the plenary power of Congress over naturalization.
Is that the same Prof. Eastman who thinks Kamala Harris could have disregarded Trump’s Electoral College votes and declared herself the winner of the election? If so, then I find his reading of the Constitution suspect.
Anyway, how are illegal immigrants and their children not “subject to the full and sovereign jurisdiction of the US”? They can be detained by the US, arrested for crimes, subject to court process and orders, required to follow economic and other regulations, etc. Seems pretty subject to the full and sovereign jurisdiction to me.
Illegals are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the US and can be removed but they owe political allegiance to their home country. They are not legal permanent residents and their children are citizens of their parents’ homeland, not the US, if the scope of the 14th amendment is properly interpreted. Wong Kim Ark does not require more. If Congress wants to be more generous, that’s up to them.
There’s no difference between territorial jurisdiction and sovereign jurisdiction. That’s just dumb. And legal permanent residents also owe allegiance to their home country. So why is the situation any different?
The person least likely to owe allegiance to the foreign country is the person born in the United States who has no memory or knowledge of that foreign land. The US of the 1860s was awash in immigrants from everywhere. When their children were born and raised here, it made no sense to make them permanent outsiders. The easier solution was just to make them citizens by virtue of being born here. The Drafters if the 14th Amendment could have limited the Citizenship Clause to only former slaves, but they took the more prudent approach and decided to sweep in the large swath of people who were being born here by the thousands every day and were never going to leave. Maybe in hindsight that was a mistake, but that’s what they did. A constitutional amendment is now the only way to undo it—unless you’re a liberal living constitutionalist, in which case the Constitution can just mean whatever suits your political agenda at a given moment.
Exactly! This is why the made up racist claims by Rivabot are so disingenuous. Every argument these people raise would eliminate birthright citizenship entirely, not limit it to the children of legal aliens.
Speaking of birth, Are you congenitally retarded or has the bat shit crazy in you finally taken its toll? Beyond that your moronic comment merits no further response.
Area Man, if you don’t like the distinction between territorial and sovereign jurisdiction, take it up with the drafters of the Citizenship Clause. And what’s the difference between a legal permanent resident and an illegal? To ask the question answers it, but as for political allegiance to the US, the illegal has none.
Neither of those phrases appear in the Citizenship Clause.
I wasn't addressing you crazy Dave. As noted previously, on matters of constitutional interpretation, I'd prefer to address a fruit fly over you. And if the fruit fly was otherwise occupied, I'd look for flea with some time on its hands.
Area Man, to put it another way, an illegal cannot unilaterally make himself a citizen or legal resident.
And, under your interpretation Area Man, “subject to the jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause would be rendered meaningless or just redundant.
Again, no: it's meant to include the children of diplomats and foreign invaders, as well as Indians (who at the time were considered residents of quasi-sovereign entities).
I meant exclude, obviously, not include.
Go away you clown.
You're just mad and embarrassed that he's got you so pwned.
There is no (other) way to read the citizenship clause (as written) that does not also inevitably lead to the freed slaves being denied citizenship. Certainly the subsequent Jim Crow era legal shenanigans which denied blacks their civil rights proves that. Without explicit clarification amendment adding an exception, it has to mean the present interpretation, which also grants citizenship to children of illegals.
And which should be obvious from the purpose of the amendment. The problem posed by freed slaves (and as also mentioned above, the children of the European immigrants of the time) was the prospect of a permanent non-citizen underclass whose children also wouldn't be citizens and on and on. That caste-like dystopia is what the amendment seeks to prevent, yet it's exactly where we would end up if we ended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Can you imagine how horrible that would be? Even if we managed to secure the border, we'd have an illegal underclass... forever.
And it's precisely what jus sanguinis European countries have confronted over the last few decades with non-EU refugees. I haven't followed it in recent years to learn whether any reforms have been implemented, but for years Turkish residents of Germany (e.g.) represented a permanent, generational second class residents within German society.
"The [Fourteenth] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898).
OK, US citizens can go to Federal Prison, and they were here illegally before birth, so we give them 20 years in Federal Prison for that.
You give who 20 years in prison? The baby, for being born, or the parents for daring to have a child?
20 years seem a bit long for the baby. Maybe 12 years in school without the option, like everybody else.
🙂
Domicile = lawful permanent residency
More made up BS from ML! That's not what domicile means.
In the US, state law controls domicile determinations, and although there are a couple cases where federal law supersedes, for the most part it's up to the state -- including in the case of illegal immigrants.
I could see a path whereby illegal immigrants' children get US citizenship in blue states but not red states, given the current Supreme Court, if they agree that jurisdiction requires domicile.
But no, the permanent residence itself need not be lawful in order to be a domicile.
But what about those who are not of woman born, but were from their mother's womb untimely ripp'd ?
Just a few examples:
"What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
- Lyman Trumbull
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
- Jacob Howard
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United Sates, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
- Jacob Howard (alluding to 1866 CRA)
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
- Jacob Howard (bracket added)
"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
- John Bingham (related to 1866 CRA)
"The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.."
Elk v. Wilkins
“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”
- The Slaughterhouse Cases
Personally I don't think any of those quotes are inconsistent with birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.
But in any case... who do you think the amendment does apply to?
I'm not sure what's worse: that you fabricated a quote, or that you admitted it.
Offspring of Norwegians in the US illegally might be subject. Not subject would be the offspring of illegals from sh*thole countries.
Is the Constitution a suicide pact?
No, following it wouldn't be suicidal.
Straying from it certainly is.
Now wait for Josh's article defending Trump and attacking birthright citizenship.
Along with maybe FDR refusing to let young Jewish families land here in 1939? Not likely.
So, we amend the Constitution. That would be the right way to do it.
Right. And FWIW, the President has no role in amending the Constitution.
Aside from lobbying the public from his bully pulpit, anyway.
No Brett, we tax them. 97% of assets should work...
"Them"? A child of illegal immigrants who is born in the US is no less a citizen than you. And 14A - equal protection - appears to cover it.
Bullshyte.
Maybe we should just shoot them.
You are not a serious person. Adults have no use for your immature potshots. Muted.
What a fool you are.
Until Bellmore's amendment passes they are a citizen, so your 97% tax is unconstitutional and a really stupid idea.
Shooting them is also unconstitutional, not to mention a disgusting, morally reprehensible idea.
Not necessary. The holding in Wong Kim Ark applies only to legal permanent residents. All other overly broad applications (illegals, tourists) are administrative mistakes.
Bot programmed to repeat racist stuff without any understanding of any of it.
The holding in Wong Kim Ark applied to everyone. "Legal permanent residents" wasn't even a category at the time, and nothing in the holding is in any way limited.
Try reading the case, you bat shit crazy clown. The parents were legal (to the full extent the law allowed), permanent residents. The scope of the holding extends no further than to the offspring of such parents. Now kindly go f yourself.
The scope of the holding extends as far as it extends, which is to all people born in the U.S. except the children of diplomats, invading armies, and Indians. Nothing in the decision limits it in its application to any other group of any sort.
If children of people who entered the US illegally are not entitled to birthright citizenship, that logic would have applied to the children of illegally transported slaves.
I can see several regular commenters responding: "Your terms are acceptable."
Well, they would be. The number of illegally transported slaves isn't zero, shamefully, but it's few enough.
We could always make a statutory exception, like we do for the children of citizens born abroad.
Actually Brett, it is quite high because the Creek Nation had its own slaves, and the problem with Ilya's argument is that the 14th Amendment did NOT apply to them because they were owned by Indians. They were physically within the country, but not subject to the laws thereof because of who owned them.
There are very few 'illegally transported slaves' today. Not zero, but one is found occasionally.
The point is that it did apply to illegally transported slaves at the time, so it's hard to argue that it doesn't today.
Okay, illegally transported slaves should be sent back. And their kids. I believe that the vast majority of slaves were transported legally.
To the extent the slave trade is still in practice, sure. Wait, are you stupid enough to believe it would be a rollback to 200 years ago?
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."
It worked with Eisenhower's Operation Wetback and it can work now.
And we sent them ALL home, Ilya included.
Not a serious response.
From someone who has no knowledge of history, nor of the populism behind it. EISENHOUWER did Operation Wetback....
Dr. Ed is talking about this just so he can have an excuse to use the slur "wetback."
It's no problem. Just prevent the illegal entry to begin with and they won't have children here. If the asylum laws are not reformed, any asylum-seekers should be made to remain in Mexico during evaluation of their claims (which are almost all frivolous).
That WOULD solve most of the problem. The goal in revoking birthright citizenship is just to deal with all those anchor babies, and remove one of the major incentives for illegally immigrating.
Can you be clearer on what you're supporting?
1. Total revocation of birthright citizenship, as you literally said, or is that just shorthand for limiting it to children of citizens?
2. "Deal with all those anchor babies" - Are you proposing to "deal with" those already born, or just going forward?
3. If, as I assume, you really just mean limits going forward, are you going to break with the MAGAs if and when they say it's retroactive and all citizenship is at the declaration of the president, or is that position still within your Overton window?
What am *I* supporting? Well, as I said above, the legitimate way to deal with the birthright citizenship issue is a constitutional amendment. I've been advocating all along a Constitutional convention, and if a birthright citizenship amendment originated from one and was ratified? Yay. If not? Dem's the breaks.
Above I discuss other approaches because, as I keep saying, a lot of modern constitutional precedent is based on shitty arguments that should have been laughed out of a courtroom, so apparently resorting to shitty arguments and hoping the Court inexplicably doesn't laugh at them is part of our legal system. But that's not what I'm advocating, that's what somebody, say with the initials "DJT", could resort to, and be well within the normal functioning of our constitutional jurisprudence. Though I'm sure you'd react in horror anyway.
What I'm PERSONALLY advocating is,
1. Make the border genuinely secure. Like, secure enough people don't even bother trying. As I've remarked before, our border with Mexico amounts to 3/8" per American, we could build an Israeli style high tech border wall every year, and it would practically be a rounding error in our national budget.
2. Deport every illegal alien found, with very hard to come by exceptions, regardless of how long they've been here, so that potential future illegals know it doesn't matter how deep of roots they grow, we don't care. When we find you we WILL deport you!
3. You don't want to be separated from your family? They can leave with you. Citizens ARE entitled to leave the country if they want, after all. When the kid grows up, maybe he'll want to come back. Fine, THAT would be legal immigration.
I married a legal immigrant, and guess what? If she'd been deported after we married, I'd be living in the Philippines today. If she'd been deported after bearing my child, the three of us would be there today.
That's the way actual families work.
Thanks for the serious response.
1. I don't doubt that we could make the border considerably more secure, if one is not too concerned about property rights and the courts are willing to toss away even more of the 4th Amendment. But even places like East Germany and North Korea were not able to get a hermetic seal. And since you mentioned Israel, they had a notable failure of border security last year.
2, 3. These are obviously constitutional and mostly already the on the books. The issue is finding the aliens, which will either be ineffectual or require an order of magnitude more papiers-bitte than Americans are used to. I concede that as it is we don't deport many that we find, and that could change, but under your policy aliens would take greater care to not get found in the first place.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the broken asylum system. It results in many people of childbearing age being here with vague-halfway permission for years at a time. Even if the "doesn't apply to children of illegal aliens" interpretation was followed it would not cover these cases.
Finally, I also married a legal immigrant, and like you I'd follow her if she was deported. But our willingness to leave if forced doesn't mean I think it would be good policy, for me, you, or anyone else in the same situation.
Just to be clear, I don't support your 1, 2, and 3 as policy, but I agree they are things the government could legitimately do without necessarily violating the constitution.
1. Border fortifications are about the clearest example of a public use for purposes of eminent domain you could possibly ask for, and many of the property owners along the border, where the government doesn't already own the land, would LOVE a wall to stop hordes of illegals from tromping through their property.
2-3. Finding the aliens is actually pretty darned easy, the reason we've had trouble is that it has been the informal policy of the federal government to fail at it. Enforcement being drastically underfunded, for instance.
All you'd really have to do is mandate EVerify, and then institute a program of bounties for employers hiring illegals, paid by fines on the employer. One where, besides citizens qualifying, the first illegal to report an employer would qualify for the bounty, and get a temporary deferment on being deported.
You'd turn illegal aliens overnight from cheap workers to hideous financial threats.
Secondly, you'd levy a heavy tax on remittances, refundable to legal residents when they filed their taxes, and avoidable by providing proof of legal residence when making the transfer.
Getting a job, and sending money home to family are two of the biggest motives for illegal immigration.
Sure, this would require laws be enacted, but that's easy enough if Congress actually wants the problem solved.
I didn't mention the asylum situation, because it's a comment, not a long form essay. But it's easily enough dealt with by requiring asylum applicants to remain abroad until approved.
Let me reiterate: This is NOT a difficult problem to solve. It's only looked that way because Congress didn't WANT it solved.
The voters wanted it solved, the business donors want their cheap labor. Until small donors started to become important, that was a fight the large donors always won.
Your "deport the parents and the kid can come back when it's 18" solution is the one I advocate.
A good first step to cleaning up the asylum process would be to immediately deny asylum to people who have already passed through another country to get here. The UN Convention on Refugees doesn't obligate us to give even the slightest consideration to mere economic migrants. A Venezuelan who arrives here via land has passed through a minimum of seven other countries before hitting the southern border. Are the people advocating for letting them stay saying that all of those Central American countries are unsafe hellholes where a refugee could not find safe asylum?
Getting a job, and sending money home to family are two of the biggest motives for illegal immigration.
What a terrible thing. Guy wants to earn money and help his family. Serious criminal activity, I'd say, and we shouldn't let him get away with it.
If a guy robbed a bank in order to put his kids through college, the fact that putting your kids through college wasn't a criminal activity wouldn't help him when he was caught.
No one is getting robbed. Making you mad isn’t robbery.
Entering the country contrary to our laws isn't legal, either.
Neither is jaywalking.
Your choice of what comparison to make is your choice, not some inevitable legal conclusion.
With all due respect, I think maybe you don't know a lot of illegal aliens personally, and you've probably earned your living through being a formal employee of an organized business.
Using E-Verify to find illegal aliens is about as effective as using E-Verify to locate homeless people.
It's not like illegal aliens are going to work for Raytheon or GM or even "name brand" supermarkets. In many cases, they're not employees of a recognized business at all. They're doing odd jobs for cash, buying and selling stuff at flea markets, and working as nannies, cleaners, unlicensed home care, barbers, hairstylists, etc.
And oh yeah, "selling" sacks of onions to the farm owner after being kindly allowed to pull the onions out of the owner's field.
Did you check your barber's immigration status the last time you got a haircut? He or she generally isn't an employee of the barber shop, usually they just rent the chair. Last time you called in some lawn service, did you check their papers?
I don't want to be an agent of the police. I guess I just don't think living here without permission is such serious crime that we need to make sacrifices. Frankly I'm not even interested in spending more money on enforcement of current laws.
Amen.
Nor do I see any sense in finding and deporting people who are here, earning a living, and generally behaving themselves.
It's completely irrational. And if you do want to somehow punish these people, who dared to cross the border without papers, why is deportation the only possible punishment? How about a fine, maybe $100, and let it go.
I don't particularly care if they're punished, I just want them elsewhere, and don't regard the citizen of another country not being in the US as a "punishment".
"And if you do want to somehow punish these people, who dared to cross the border without papers, why is deportation the only possible punishment? How about a fine, maybe $100, and let it go."
Well, sure, you'd think that reasonable, because you don't WANT these laws. So you don't want them enforced, or at most enforced ineffectually.
But in that regard you're in the minority, and why should the majority who want effective border enforcement agree to enforcement mechanisms deliberately chosen to fail?
Brett, a case should (and could) be brought to SCOTUS and get a constitutional determination on birthright citizenship (children born in US from illegal aliens). Wong Kim Ark had legal status. The question has never been addressed squarely. Time and present circumstance now require a definitive answer.
Your 1-3 is just common sense. Little wonder so many (above) have problems with it. Their way of thinking is precisely why Pres Trump will take the oath in 12 days (they don't see it).
" Their way of thinking is precisely why Pres Trump will take the oath in 12 days (they don't see it)."
EXACTLY. That "If I personally don't like a popular law, the government should fail to enforce it!" approach to governance is exactly why Trump is about to get a second term.
Bernard, if you don't like our having immigration laws, then repeal them. Until then, enforce them.
Oh, but you can't repeal them, doing so would be political suicide. Darn that democracy, where what the people think actually matters, and flouting the electorate's will long enough and visibly enough loses you elections!
Dude who analogizes to robbery doesn’t want illegals punished.
Dude who thinks crossing the border illegally is a sign of inherent criminality doesn’t want these people punished.
Dude who wants to define illegal I migrants as invaders doesn’t want them punished.
Brett, anyone who has read your posts knows this is not consistent. Your animus is towering.
That's not the way law works. You might as well argue that Wong Kim Ark was of Chinese background, so therefore there has never been a court ruling that people of Korean background are entitled to birthright citizenship. That is not to say that SCOTUS could not narrow WKA; any ruling SCOTUS makes, it can theoretically unmake. But unless and until SCOTUS does so, birthright citizenship is indisputable. The arguments against birthright citizenship are racist, frivolous, ahistorical, illogical, and immoral.
The U.S. has always had birthright citizenship, as long as the country has existed. What happened was that in 1857, Roger Taney invented a racist exception to it, and to put the issue beyond all cavil, the 14th amendment was enacted to overturn it. It was not put into the constitution to narrow citizenship, which is what declaring that birthright citizenship doesn't exist would do.
David, SCOTUS has never squarely addressed the question of whether children born to illegal aliens have citizenship or not, has it? We aren't talking about legal resident aliens (WKA).
Interested parties bring cases though the federal judiciary all the time. This would be no different. Could a case be expedited with a change in statutory interpretation by DHS on children born to parents who are both illegal aliens? Maybe. I bet Stephen Miller might consider it, perhaps he should.
Regardless, that question should be squarely addressed, and answered by SCOTUS. Then the debate is over.
It has. The interpretation of the 14th amendment espoused in WKA encompasses children born to illegal aliens. It in no way made its decision contingent on the citizenship or residency status of his parents.
What I suspect you mean is "Did SCOTUS ever explicitly say, 'This interpretation applies to the children of illegal aliens'?" In that case, the answer is no. But SCOTUS also didn't ever explicitly say, "This interpretation applies to the children of people from Korea." Nor did it ever explicitly say, "This interpretation applies to people named George." But that's not how court cases work. When the court sets forth an interpretation of a constitutional provision, the interpretation applies to all things encompassed by that interpretation, unless and until the Court says otherwise. Which it has never done. (I again acknowledge that the Court could narrow the holding of WKA if it wanted. But it can do that for any decision it reaches on any subject, so that's an empty observation.)
"Interested parties bring cases though the federal judiciary all the time. This would be no different. Could a case be expedited with a change in statutory interpretation by DHS on children born to parents who are both illegal aliens? Maybe. I bet Stephen Miller might consider it, perhaps he should."
Article III standing is a jurisdictional requirement in all federal courts. Absent such standing, there is no case or controversy. Wong Kim Ark invoked federal jurisdiction by applying for a writ of habeas corpus after having been refused admission to the U. S. following a temporary visit to China.
Birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1, is settled law. If the incoming Trump administration attempts to restrict birthright citizenship -- say hypothetically by directing the Social Security Administration to withhold assignment of an SSN to children born in the United States of undocumented immigrant parents -- that will give rise to injuries in fact which could support federal court jurisdiction.
The most likely plaintiffs would be guardians ad litem for children whose applications for social security numbers had been refused. Suit would be brought in an immigrant friendly jurisdiction. The plaintiffs would quickly obtain injunctive relief based on Wong Kim Ark. The Court of Appeals would affirm the District Court judgment.
At that point the Trump Administration could seek review by certiorari in the Supreme Court.
I would also add that the same people who had a tantrum, at the thought of "vaccine passports" are eagerly promoting a system where one needs permission from the federal government just to get a job.
There's no magic "deport" button that teleports illegal aliens out of the country, Brett.
I agree with you that finding them isn't the hard part. Actually deporting them is. Not only do they get court hearings of course (due process) (at our expense), but we have to find a country willing to take them... and their kids. And then pay to fly them there. Then do it all again if they come back.
Hence all the talk of camps. We're not likely to be able to deport people much faster than we already do. But we can put them all in camps! What does that even accomplish? Now they're definitely not supporting themselves and paying taxes. It's so dumb, not to mention fascist.
The only solution is border security, and the solution to border security is what Democrats have been advocating forever: more resources for enforcement and asylum processing, plus some asylum reform like Biden's probably currently illegal cap (which is working great, btw). The stupid, expensive wall doesn't even work.
"but we have to find a country willing to take them"
I find it interesting that the very same people who are outraged if the US doesn't go above and beyond the legal requirements in accommodating everybody who utters the word "asylum!" are so casual about violations of the far more fundamental international law principle that citizens of a country are entitled to enter that country!
Generally, if we know what country they're a citizen of, it's not a problem. But parents of kids might not be citizens of the same country, and the kids might not be recognized as citizens of either. Also they can make it hard for us to know what country they actually came from. It's not like they've got passports and visas, you know.
Also, I just proposed, as did a bipartisan Congress, as did Biden in an executive order, major limits on asylum. You know who didn't like it? Trump. Suck on that some more.
We can deport them much faster. Pres Obama was the Deporter in Chief with 400K deportations. Seems like a low bar, to me. I'd like to see quadruple that number by the end of this year. Pres Obama's other idea, a moat with alligators, is something I will pass on.
TX has helpfully offered a 'Texas sized' parcel of land (roughly 1K acres) to use as a temporary holding facility, pending expedited deportation to another country. Agreeably close to airports, too.
You can't make this stuff up. You can't reply substantively without making a fool of yourself. What accounts for it? Can it be brain worms all the way down?
What, lathrop, you wanted the moat with alligators? Really?
An example of how outrageous the problem is:
"An illegal immigrant busted at a state-run shelter in Revere [MA] with $1 million worth of fentanyl and an AR-15 was not officially part of Massachusetts’ emergency assistance program and is not yet in the custody of federal immigration officials despite Gov. Maura Healey’s claim that he was Tuesday."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/01/07/illegal-immigrant-arrested-at-revere-shelter-with-alleged-gun-drugs-was-not-part-of-state-program-healey-says/
"Healey did not identify the person who Sanchez was staying with at a Quality Inn in Revere serving as a state-run shelter and referred questions from the Herald to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, which partially oversees the system."
What's outrageous is your "logic."
A man from Maine busted at a state-run shelter in Revere [MA] with $1 million worth of fentanyl and an AR-15 was not officially part of Massachusetts’ emergency assistance program and is not yet in the custody of federal immigration officials despite Gov. Maura Healey’s claim that he was Tuesday.
What in the world are we going to do with those Maine people? Deport them to Canada, I say.
But a man from Maine wouldn't have been allowed into the hotel -- qua shelter. Or wouldn't have been very healthy had he remained there...
That little fact matters...
11 POUNDS of fentanyl....
OK - the kids are citizens, but the parents aren't. So deport the parents and anyone else who claims them and is here illegally. And never let the parents back in the country, under threat of a 2 year mandatory prison sentence. Are they going to leave the kids on the street and walk away?
Decency, humanity, and taking care of the least among us, are not part of the picture, at least not according to Trump and his supporters.
And never let the kids leave the country.
Right, that's it, I'm tired of your shit. You're muted.
Perhaps you've got some idea of an isolated nuclear family, all here illegally except for the child, pariahs with no connections to citizens. In that case, sure, the child (probably) goes with them.
You might be underestimating the fraction that are mixed citizen/alien marriages, or have extended family that are here legally. Many citizens aren't terrified of associating with foreigners.
Suppose two illegal immigrants enter the USA and then have a baby. The baby was born in the USA, so that child would be a USA citizen.
But the parents aren't. The parents should then be deported, either leaving leaving the baby behind or taking her with them.
If they take the child, then she can back as a citizen, but they can't.
Works for me.
Refusal to take your child with you would certainly be enough to qualify as an unfit parent, and lose custody.
In many cases, that child can claim citizenship in another country. If so, the USA could declare the kid to be under the jurisdiction of that country, and deport him.
We could just as easily get rid of you. Give Equatorial Guinea a modest amount of foreign aid (e.g. a suitcase of cash) in return for a treaty "allowing" any US citizen to claim Equatorial citizenship.
Then we declare you to be under their jurisdiction, and hold you in a detention center until we can find a ship with some empty shipping containers going that way. It would be just as legitimate as what you're proposing.
That's not necessarily an objection though, there is good case for deporting you. The real objection is that we shouldn't let other countries decide who is a US citizen.
With creative thinking like that, we could solve the illegal alien problem. And you are right, we would have to find a way to deal with countries who do not want their citizens' kids back.
It cannot. But I would certainly support deporting the Schlafly family, which have been a fungal infection on America for decades.
Mushroom-looking New Jersey lawyer calling other people fungal infections. Comedy gold.
Roger,
I doubt that you can cite any solid grounds for deporting the child.
As for the parents here illegally, that is why the kids are called "anchor babies."
Congratulations, you've just re-invented the logic of the ECJ's Ruiz Zambrano case law, going back to 2011. Quoting the OG case (citations omitted):
Immigration laws were not a thing until after 14A was ratified. Thus there is no way to argue that "illegal immigrants" were excluded because there was not such thing as an illegal immigrant. And Congress does not have the authority to change the Constitution by crating categories of people and they declaring those people are not protected by the Constitution.
Not true. Immigration was regulated, going back to 1790.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
You've confused naturalization with immigration. Did the Naturalization Act make it illegal to cross the border?
An immigrant is someone in the process of naturalization. Otherwise, a border crosser is just a tourist, visitor, or illegal.
"An immigrant is someone in the process of naturalization."
Then by your definition, someone not eligible for naturalization can't be an immigrant at all. Legal or illegal.
You scored the own goal of the day.
But in any case, you failed to answer the question. Did the Naturalization Act make it illegal to cross the border?
Yes, someone coming to the USA on a tourist or student visa is not an immigrant. Illegal immigrant is a contradictory term. The more accurate term is illegal alien.
The 1790 law did not regulate the border, as far as I know.
More self-proclaimed definitions.
An immigrant is not "someone in the process of naturalization," factually, legally, or logically. There are people who live here permanently and legally with no intention of ever naturalizing.
Yours is the commonly understood definition of an immigrant.
So if Adolf Hitler, Obama Bin Laden, Khomeni, Putin managed to hide out in Amurica and have kids the kids would be US Citizens? Hate to say this but Dr Ed sounds reasonable compared to you fucks
Frank
They would not even have to hide out in America. They could pay an illegal alien to bear a child for them.
I don't see that it's any more of a problem than the children of Dahmer, Epstein, Manson, etc getting to be citizens.
Where'd you get this idea that you punish children for the crimes of their parents? Especially laughably minor misdemeanors like wading across a river without permission or going past the expiration date on some stamp in a passport.
They are not being punished. They are being returned to their homelands.
They are not being "returned" anywhere, since they were never in those places at all, and it's their parents' homelands, not theirs. The U.S. is their homeland. And while I would not all object to punishing you for being such an awful person, I would regard sending you to a place you've never been (and may not even speak the language) as punishment.
When I was in the military I was often sent to live in places I've never been. Come to think of it, when illegal immigrants arrive in the US, most of them haven't been here before either. Are those "punishments"?
If the parents can pack up and move to a foreign country they have never lived in before, the kids can too.
You seem to be confused about the voluntary nature of immigration vs. the involuntary nature of deportation.
Ducks,
They are not being punished if only the parents, illegally here, are deported. Whether the child goes with the parents is their choice, but the child does have a right to stay
You are completely correct as to the law. But the original comment by Drackman was about the kids, and he clearly doesn't think they should have the right to stay.
Within current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the policy difference is between (1) those who really desperately want to get rid of the child and think they've found one simple trick to make that happen, (2) those who really don't care much whether the child stays or goes but want the parents gone, and (3) those who think letting the child have some reasonable family environment is (usually) more important than getting rid of the parents.
From the Gowder article cited by Somin:
All of two paragraphs later, Gowder begins a section he entitles "Historic Exceptions":
So much for "full stop".
The piece from this "legal scholar" reads more like an MSNBC anti-Trump editorial screed than anything resembling legal scholarship, and it adds nothing new to the debate over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. In other words, it resembles something Somin would write (and has written many, many times), which no doubt accounts for Somin's admiration of it.
Perhaps one day we will learn if the Supreme Court finds Somin's interpretation of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment as astute as it found his interpretation of Section Three.
Foreign diplomats and military invaders are just two of the exceptions.
And they actually ARE military invaders...
Who are these military invaders?
Are they an organized military force? What territory have they even tried to conquer?
Did you really work at UMass? Did I really contribute to your salary?
I'm disgusted.
I think that the present jus in bello makes clear what "military" means. Ragtag refugees certainly don't fit that description even if they cross into the US illegally
Any evidence that the physically fit young communist chinese 'men of military age' paying thousands of dollars to sneak into the US are "ragtag refugees"? Or do they look more like three divisions (so far) of shock troops?
Any evidence that there are any physically fit young communist chinese men of military age paying thousands of dollars to sneak into the US?
I chuckled.
For the record, ending birthright citizenship is fine. Most countries don't have it (I think - admittedly I haven't counted). But it requires a constitutional amendment.
The more interesting question, albeit not a legal question, is whether that is something Trumpists should try doing. It would keep immigration on the front page of the (proverbial) newspapers for years, and that may well give them an electoral benefit that's worth the effort. I don't know if such an amendment could get to 2/3 of the states, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that every state legislature of a blue state would find it politically costless to vote against such an amendment (or not vote on it at all).
Some comments:
(1) Birthright citizenship isn't the norm in Europe, a continent based mainly on ethnostates, and with a long history of moving borders, and unfortunately sometimes people, based on ethnicity.
On the other hand birthright citizenship is virtually universal in the Western Hemisphere:
The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Not surprising, considering that the people who founded those governments generally did not get their citizenship by pure-blooded descent from indigeneous pre-Columbian ethnic groups.
(2) It needs 3/4 of the states, not 2/3. And it will be difficult because elimination of birthright will need to be combined with a new replacement rule for citizenship. Once that debate on the replacement gets started I predict it will be quite difficult to get a majority to agree on one thing, because the current anti-birthright coalition is a motley combination of culture preservationists, electoral engineers, labor protectionists, white nationalists, and Malthusians who have differing ideas on who should be allowed into the country, who should be a citizen, and why.
Several European countries used to have birthright citizenship, but the EU standard is now that children born to legal residents (not illegal immigrants or tourists) are citizens by birth. That's a reasonable compromise.
In the entire world, the only two developed countries that still have birthright citizenship are the USA and Canada. That's it. It's not really an issue for countries like El Salvador, Venezuela, etc because they aren't destination countries for illegal immgirants.
Your unrequited longing for Europe's theocratic monarchies of most of the last millennium and idiosyncratic understanding of "entire world" and "developed" notwithstanding... unrestricted "birthright citizenship is virtually universal in the Western Hemisphere."
That includes the Western Hemisphere's six most consequential countries:
Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico, United States.
"Look, the Europeans do it!" is no more convincing coming from anti-immigration advocates on the right, than it is from pro-nationalized-health-care advocates on the left.
I also think your definition of "developed" is a bit off. For example, Guyana and Barbados have higher per capita income than some of the EU members you're comparing to. And in terms of industrial output, Brazil easily beats every country in Europe, and Mexico and Argentina beat all but the largest ones.
If "developed" was shorthand for something a little less politically correct, just go ahead and say it. Most of us here aren't the type to call your employer even if we strongly disagree.
The rules are much more complex than "children born to legal residents". If that rule exists at all, it may well be "children born to those legally resident for at least 10 years, if the kid opts in when it's 18 years old", or something like that.
No, you don't need a replacement rule. Just go back to what it said before the 14th amendment:
The Congress shall have Power (...) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Speaking of my opinions on citizenship: It should be very, very hard indeed to take someone's citizenship away against their will, if not outright impossible. Citizenship should be treated as an unconditional membership of the community, not as something that can be taken away as long as you have citizenship somewhere else (or can get it somewhere else), which is what is increasingly happening today.
Under what circumstance would you say citizenship can be revoked?
If I was writing a constitution, I'd probably err on the safe side and ban it altogether.
Otherwise, it's basically the same as taking away someone's right to vote. (Symbolically similar too. In both cases you're throwing them out of the circle of The People.) So limited to crimes against the People, the democratic order, etc. That means you'd only allow revocation of citizenship as part of a sentence imposed by a judge following a conviction of crimes like treason and insurrection.
"Under what circumstance would you say citizenship can be revoked?"
For a natural born citizen, none.
For naturalized citizens see:
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-l-chapter-2
The question wasn't about the law as it currently is, but about what I thought the law should be.
I think it IS reasonable to revoke it in 2 circumstances:
1. A naturalized citizen who obtained naturalization by material fraud.
2. Any citizen who clearly and unambiguously requests that their citizenship be revoked.
And, that's about it.
Here's the actual law on the matter:
"§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."
Additionally, naturalized citizens can involuntarily lose their citizenship if convicted of some specific crimes.
I agree. Your (2) was included in my original comment as "against their will". I'd forgotten about your (1), but that seems right.
Broadly speaking the underlying principle is that it is fine if a society is reluctant to invite new people to become full members of society, but that once such an invitation is made, it has to be truly unconditional. Once they have a passport, they're "one of us", even if they do terrible stuff.
I don't like cases like Shemima Begum, where someone who was born and raised in the UK and is a UK citizen gets her UK passport removed and told she should apply for Bangladeshi citizenship (which she's never had), because she went and joined ISIS. Joining ISIS is very bad, but the correct response is to lock her up if she committed provable crimes, and to keep her under close surveillance if she did not. Taking her passport away was wrong. (And, I would argue, unlawful. But that's an argument that was rejected all the way up to the Supreme Court.)
While I agree with you about people who join enemy militaries, US law treats joining an enemy military as voluntary renunciation of citizenship. I guess because the constitutional bar to conviction for treason, (Which is what they're actually guilty of.) is so high.
Actually, US law treats joining ANY foreign military, or any foreign government position requiring a loyalty oath, as renunciation of citizenship, because US law doesn't recognize dual citizenship; Swearing loyalty to another country is renouncing loyalty to ours.
But joining an enemy military is particularly likely to see this enforced.
Yes, obviously enforcement is very selective. To the point that politicians successfully campaign for office on the fact that they served in a foreign military:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4254384-brian-mast-israeli-military-uniform-capitol-hill/
Note the actual details, they're important:
"(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; "
If it's a friendly military, and you're not an officer, you're fine.
Thanks for the quote.
And actually, looking into the details about Mast, it appears he wasn't even in the IDF officially. He was a civilian, non-combat, unarmed volunteer allowed to wear the uniform.
As an aside, not sure why we make the officer vs not-officer distinction. The distinction that would make sense is "conscripted or obligated by unexpected conditions" versus "voluntarily signed up to fight".
US law does not in fact, do that. That's the entire point of this thread of the discussion: there is no automatic renunciation. The government must show that your intent in undertaking those sorts of acts was to renounce citizenship.
I was going to tell you that you needed to read the thread above, but you're the one who posted it! Here:
I've previously remarked on it, but my dad was senile by 70, and I turn 66 next week. So I'm not offended if you point out I make a basic mistake like that, I'm just depressed about it, because I can see where it's headed.
I agree with you about your 1) and 2).
As you may know, the U.S. basically fits that description. There are only three ways one can lose U.S. citizenship:
1. Voluntarily surrender it. (And if you do so in order to avoid taxes, we make that hard!)
2. Have it proven that one procured it by fraud in the first place. (Like claiming not to have been a Nazi war criminal when one applied, but actually having been one.)
3. Undertake certain acts with the intent to relinquish one's US citizenship. (It used to be that something like serving in a foreign military or running for office in a foreign country or even voting in a foreign country could result in automatic loss of citizenship, but about 60 years ago SCOTUS ruled that it must be shown that — in addition to having done such things voluntary — you must have done so with the intent to relinquish your citizenship. So those can still be evidence of such intent, but by themselves are not sufficient.)
I'm not under the impression that ruling is being very strictly enforced.
It's a very narrow rule, so there's not any strict enforcing to be done. If all you mean by this is that we don't employ roving bands of investigators going around proactively trying to hunt down people who committed one of the specified acts to prove that when those people did so they were intending to relinquish citizenship, then to state that is to explain why it doesn't happen.
It's really only going to come up in rare cases like where someone goes abroad to join ISIS. And since that's a very serious crime, it's easier to just prosecute the person and let them rot in jail than to (a) prove that their intent was to relinquish U.S. citizenship and denaturalize them and then (b) find a place that will take them.
Prof. Amanda Frost guest posted around here and detailed the efforts in the first Trump administration to broaden the use of citizenship stripping.
Yes, although IIRC that was about a slightly different aspect: what Trump (Miller/Bannon?) wanted to do was aggressively go after people who had been naturalized and argue that they lied on their applications so their naturalizations were void ab initio.
"(And if you do so in order to avoid taxes, we make that hard!)"
And the US will contend that you actually still owe the taxes
Does service in the French Foreign Legion count, for purposes of stripping citizenship (serving in foreign military)?
Suppose I retire to Country X. and through a series of perfectly legal financial transactions, I acquire the ability to vote in Country X through a pensioner citizenship program. I vote in their election. Does that count for purposes of stripping citizenship?
Sure. Would it be sufficient? No, of course not. Again; you must have done that (voted, in your hypo) with the intent of renouncing your American citizenship.
Actually, no, because the FFL doesn't require a loyalty oath, they just have you swear to obey, and they're not a hostile power, either.
In countries with a draft, there is a procedure by which dual citizens who are drafted go to a US consulate and fill out a form that basically says they aren’t voluntarily joining the other country’s military, they are being compelled to. That form suggests that there is at least a concern that voluntarily joining another country’s military may itself be perceived evidence of intent to renounce US citizenship.
O.K., I have a question. I am a U.S. citizen, born in NYC to parents who were born in NYC, of legal immigrant parents. I am also an Irish citizen. But, I can't vote in Ireland. Is that right?
That depends on Irish law. My brother is a dual citizen and he can vote in the elections of both countries.
Wow, I wonder how that is?
Maybe someday you will lose your USA citizenship if you ever vote in a foreign election.
Irish expats generally can't vote. (Which is probably wise, given how many Irish citizens live in Northern Ireland.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Irish_expatriates_to_vote
OK, Prof Somin, then what is your proposed solution to the problem of Chinese (or other nationalities) pregnant women going on "citizenship tours" to the US for the express purpose of having a US citizen baby? Which is taken back to China to be raised there, so while the child has a US birth certificate, he/she has no cultural, family, or ties of loyalty to this country whatsoever. Yet could still one day vote in US election elections and join the military.
While I despise illegal immigration, this is ten times worse. At least illegal immigrants are living here, working here, being educated here, and developing some ties to this country.
It's not a problem, so it doesn't need a solution. (I'm not saying it never happens — except for the part about joining the military. I'm saying that it's not a problem.)
If it happens in such significant numbers as to pose a problem, then we can discuss how to solve it.
The same thing we do about the problem of criminals going free because the police didn’t get a warrant before they seized the evidence, or holdout jurors voting to acquit. Or the problem of people espousing really hateful things on street corners.
I agree that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship on children born in the US to aliens who entered the Us illegally, but only because of the text and history of the 14th Amendment, not because of the policy and fairness arguments Professor Somin focuses on.
That said, it may be worth mentioning that the 14th Amendment was clearly intended to confer citizenship on people whose parents involuntarily entered the US, as slaves. So consent with respect to entry was never considered relevant from the beginning.
Just to be clear: I agree that this was the immediate motivating factor for the citizenship clause of the 14A. That's hard for anyone to dispute. But it was not written narrowly. It could've said, "Dred Scott is overruled; black people are citizens." (I mean, obviously that's not the legalistic way to draft it.) But instead it was written far more generally, to make a broad rule about birthright citizenship.
"Consent" refers to the consent of the nation, not the consent of the individual migrant, and slaves arrived here with that governmental "consent". (I put aside here for the moment Somin's note on slaves illegally brought into the country.) An alien in this country illegally does not have that consent. He is liable at any time to be arrested and removed. In this respect, he has some similarities to the diplomat, who can be expelled from the country at any time. This lack of consent would also apply to a member of an invading army, whose children born in the U.S., like the diplomat's, would not be U.S. citizens.