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.