Trump Birthright Citizenship Case: Supreme Court Weighs In
Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments presented in the text regarding birthright citizenship in the US:
* The 14th Amendment is Clear: The text asserts that the question of whether those born in the US are citizens is “settled” due to the 14th Amendment. The amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”
* “All Persons” Means All Persons: The author emphasizes that the phrase “all persons” is inclusive, extending to individuals with undocumented parents or those whose parents have unfavorable immigration status.
* “Subject to the Jurisdiction” Exception: The amendment includes a caveat: individuals must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US to be citizens. This means being bound by US law. The author points out a possibly ironic outcome: if someone wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction, they couldn’t be deported becuase they’d be outside the reach of immigration law.
* Narrow Exception,Past Context: The “subject to the jurisdiction” clause isn’t a broad loophole. The Supreme Court case United States v. wong Kim Ark (1898) established it as a narrow exception. Historically, it primarily excluded children of Native American tribes who owed allegiance to their tribes, reflecting the tense relationship between the US and tribal nations at the time of the amendment’s ratification.
* Policy Change Regarding Native Americans: The US later reversed this policy with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, granting citizenship to all non-citizen Indians born within the US.
In essence, the article argues that birthright citizenship is firmly established by the 14th Amendment, and the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause is a limited exception with a specific historical context that doesn’t apply to most people born in the US today.