The Bull Elephant
  • Home
  • About The Bull Elephant
  • Fun Stuff
  • Contact The Bull Elephant
Latest Posts
Khrushchev’s Communist Propaganda Lives on In the Democrat...
‘2A Sanctuary’ movement shows how conservatives can win...
UPDATED: Governor threatens localities if they don’t enforce...
Fairfax predicts 90% voter turnout in 2020
Observations on James City County gun sanctuary meeting
Scott Taylor withdraws from Senate race
Right From The Start: Why the President Must...

The Bull Elephant

  • Home
  • About The Bull Elephant
  • Fun Stuff
  • Contact The Bull Elephant

Birthright citizenship is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution

written by Chad Ochocinco August 20, 2015

That amendment does indeed form the basis for the granting of such citizenship, but its scope is subject to Congressional interpretation.

FIRST, THE LAW

Here’s how it reads, in pertinent part:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
…
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Some observers and commentators have said, in essence, that if you’re in the physical territory of the United States that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is certainly how the 14th Amendment has been applied for most of the last century, but that’s by choice, not because it is a Constitutional requirement.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power…shall be considered as citizens of the United States.— Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-Md.), speaking on passage of the amendment in 1866

When the 14th Amendment was passed it was understood that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude those who were not fully within the political jurisdiction of this country. In fact, by operation of the laws passed by Congress pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (principally the Civil Rights Act of 1866), Native Americans born within the United States were not guaranteed citizenship given their native allegiance to a separate sovereign (their respective tribes). It was not until 1923 that all Native Americans became entitled to U.S. citizenship just because they were born within our borders. Under the 1866 law, not only were Native Americans excluded from the definition of what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, so were those persons “subject to any foreign power.”

This application is supported by the first judicial interpretations of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the 14th Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court gave its first take on this language:

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.— Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873)(emphasis added).

Open borders advocates tend to cite an 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, as standing for the proposition that anyone born within U.S. borders is automatically a citizen. The problem with this is that it’s not the holding in Wong Kim, which only decided whether the child of a legal permanent resident of the United States should be considered a citizen. Moreover, to reach the conclusion desired by the open borders crowd, one has to read “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause out of existence. There are two citizenship requirements in the 14th Amendment: (a) that a person be born here, and (b) that they be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Saying that only (a) matters—that anyone born here is automatically subject to U.S. jurisdiction—is to say that (b) has no meaning when it clearly does, and has in the past facilitated meaningful limits on application of birthright citizenship.

THE POLITICS

There are lots of people who want you to believe (either because it’s easier that way for them politically, or because they’re honestly mistaken) that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment does not allow us to end to automatic birthright citizenship, and that to have a reasonable discussion on the subject is impossible because “Racist!”

Within our own party, there are folks who want to drive out anyone who thinks birthright citizenship is capable of reform, or even that reform might be needed. They’ll need some boxcars for that operation, I think, because there are an awful lot of people who, for instance, back presidential candidates who favor at least some kind of limitation on automatic birthright citizenship (at least 10 of the 17 Republican candidates, accounting for over 2/3rds of voters’ expressed candidate preferences).

That is, frankly, PC nonsense (see also, e.g., the grief Jeb Bush has gotten for using the term “anchor baby“). We have an immigration crisis facing us today precisely because such arguments attempting to delegitimize honest debate have been successfully deployed for decades, by leaders in both parties. Advocates for a sane and rational immigration system that makes sense for America cannot continue to allow themselves to be drowned out of the debate. As I’ve previously written, when the grievance mongers silence reasonable debate, all we’re left with are people who don’t approach the issue reasonably.

Personally, I’d rather prioritize enforcement of existing laws over fighting for new ones addressing birthright citizenship. But, unlike some, I’m open to arguments to the contrary.

Birthright citizenship is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution was last modified: August 20th, 2015 by Chad Ochocinco
14th Amendmentbirthright citizenship
73 comments
Chad Ochocinco

Chad Ochocinco is the pseudonym for a lucky husband and proud father from Stafford, Virginia.

Your life will be better if you click one of these

Khrushchev’s Communist Propaganda Lives on In the...

December 13, 2019

‘2A Sanctuary’ movement shows how conservatives can...

December 12, 2019

UPDATED: Governor threatens localities if they don’t...

December 11, 2019

Fairfax predicts 90% voter turnout in 2020

December 11, 2019

Observations on James City County gun sanctuary...

December 11, 2019

Scott Taylor withdraws from Senate race

December 10, 2019

Right From The Start: Why the President...

December 10, 2019

Do Republicans Need to Attract Suburban Voters?

December 10, 2019

Gun controllers do not want a Constitutional...

December 9, 2019

The Vegetable Conspiracy

December 9, 2019

Fun Stuff

  • The Vegetable Conspiracy

  • Holiday TV viewing schedule

  • Snow forecast Virginia winter 2019-2020

  • Reliving History with the Chicago Cubs

  • Innocents Abroad (II)

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sign Up for Email Alerts

Select list(s):

Advertisement

Recent Comments

  • Sanctuary Cities and Nullification Theory | Foggy Bottom Line on Revolution
  • Sanctuary Cities and Nullification Theory | Foggy Bottom Line on UPDATED: Virginia gun owners are woke
  • ‘2A Sanctuary’ movement shows how conservatives can win back Virginia – The Bull Elephant on Get ready for the RPV ‘Dirge’
  • News from The Advance – The Bull Elephant on Shaun Kenney returning to RPV
  • Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and their spouses–photos – The … – Bugaluu on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and their spouses–photos

Advertisement

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

@2017 Bull Elephant Media LLC.


Back To Top