This is one of the better essays on this subject that I have read. The challenge with most every controversy is that extremism begets extremism. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent southern racists from denying citizenship to black people who might be second, third, or fourth generation Americans. The claim was that if you were not considered a citizen when you were born, or your parents weren’t, then you do not have automatic citizenship.
This is a far cry from people breaking the law to come to America, or giving birth in a hotel or an airport. The children of permanent residents are somewhat more complicated.
Unfortunately , extreme views on the 14th Amendment have made this a question of presidential power rather than one of reason and justice. The current interpretation is untenable and it would be entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to clarify the law.
We saw similar challenges after Brown v. Board of Education. Ultimately, CRA ‘64 provided the courts and the justice department the teeth to enforce the court’s ruling.
I hope that is not necessary here, but I expect that it will be. I would prefer for the middle ground to prevail, pun I tended.
This is just sane-washing. We don't have to pretend that legal scholars making arguments against ius soli are honest disinterested reasoners. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court decides what it does because it can, it is already beyond doubt that they are not an impartial institution
Very few countries have birthright citizenship.Today air travel has become affordable for hundreds of millions of people around the planet, and a certain percentage of them can choose to fly to the USA to give birth. My own children were born in France and grew up there but were not allowed to have citizenship because they left before turning 18 years of age. I wonder why the USA would be so much more generous than Europe. Especially considering that It seems that thousands of Chinese nationals are now coming here for citizenship, then returning home, and are possibly financed by the Chinese government to do this.
I stand corrected as far as the world goes, but no country in Western Europe has birthright citizenship. Neither does Australia or India. According to writing on the chart 35 countries have birthright citizenship, none are in Europe. Thirty five is not a lot considering how many countries are in the world.
Ireland got rid of birthright citizenship back in 2004. A referendum was held on the subject. 79.17% of the Irish people voted against birthright citizenship.
But the "live-to-fight-another-day" scenario misses the point that the "another day" will begin immediately if the Court rules that it's up to Congress to decide. That will make it an immediate campaign issue, in which MAGA strategists will produce all kinds of extreme, one-off cases to make their point that Democrats are defending citizenship for all types of unworthy individuals (the child of a convicted drug trafficker etc.). A Biblical "sins of the father" debate could be coming our way in the 2026 elections.
“On Friday, the news dropped that the Court will take up the legality of the president’s Inauguration Day executive order eliminating birthright citizenship—the automatic conferral of citizenship on any person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of the children’s parents”
This has never been the law or policy of the United States. The children of ambassadors have never been citizens of the United States.
The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
The Wong Kim Ark case provides does not establish a precedent. The parents of Wong Kim Ark were legal residents of the United States, not illegals.
A few years ago (in 2004), a referendum was held on birthright citizenship in Ireland. 79% of the Irish people voted to get rid of birthright citizenship. Predictably the left supported birthright citizenship to the bitter end and ranted about "racism". The people of Ireland saw through the left's deceit and voted Yes anyway.
Birthright citizenship is absurd on its face. So the Mongolian ambassador's wife gives birth in the embassy and the kid is American, not Mongolian? Silly. Oh, and it seems to me it's just as silly from a left wing as a right wing perspective.
That doesn't answer the hypothetical tho. The kid *would* be a US citizen, no? And 'worry' isn't the word -- the ambassador would just be put to some bother by the need to do whatever an ambassador would need to do in such a situation to insure that his kid was/became a citizen of it's real country.
Check out "Chapter 3 - Children Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats" and 8 CFR 101.3. The hypothetical child of Mongolian ambassador's wife would not be a US citizen. The governing federal law is the INA.
This is one of the better essays on this subject that I have read. The challenge with most every controversy is that extremism begets extremism. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent southern racists from denying citizenship to black people who might be second, third, or fourth generation Americans. The claim was that if you were not considered a citizen when you were born, or your parents weren’t, then you do not have automatic citizenship.
This is a far cry from people breaking the law to come to America, or giving birth in a hotel or an airport. The children of permanent residents are somewhat more complicated.
Unfortunately , extreme views on the 14th Amendment have made this a question of presidential power rather than one of reason and justice. The current interpretation is untenable and it would be entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to clarify the law.
We saw similar challenges after Brown v. Board of Education. Ultimately, CRA ‘64 provided the courts and the justice department the teeth to enforce the court’s ruling.
I hope that is not necessary here, but I expect that it will be. I would prefer for the middle ground to prevail, pun I tended.
This is just sane-washing. We don't have to pretend that legal scholars making arguments against ius soli are honest disinterested reasoners. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court decides what it does because it can, it is already beyond doubt that they are not an impartial institution
Very few countries have birthright citizenship.Today air travel has become affordable for hundreds of millions of people around the planet, and a certain percentage of them can choose to fly to the USA to give birth. My own children were born in France and grew up there but were not allowed to have citizenship because they left before turning 18 years of age. I wonder why the USA would be so much more generous than Europe. Especially considering that It seems that thousands of Chinese nationals are now coming here for citizenship, then returning home, and are possibly financed by the Chinese government to do this.
There is a chart in the article that argues against your very first sentence
I stand corrected as far as the world goes, but no country in Western Europe has birthright citizenship. Neither does Australia or India. According to writing on the chart 35 countries have birthright citizenship, none are in Europe. Thirty five is not a lot considering how many countries are in the world.
Ireland got rid of birthright citizenship back in 2004. A referendum was held on the subject. 79.17% of the Irish people voted against birthright citizenship.
Very informative. Thank you.
But the "live-to-fight-another-day" scenario misses the point that the "another day" will begin immediately if the Court rules that it's up to Congress to decide. That will make it an immediate campaign issue, in which MAGA strategists will produce all kinds of extreme, one-off cases to make their point that Democrats are defending citizenship for all types of unworthy individuals (the child of a convicted drug trafficker etc.). A Biblical "sins of the father" debate could be coming our way in the 2026 elections.
“On Friday, the news dropped that the Court will take up the legality of the president’s Inauguration Day executive order eliminating birthright citizenship—the automatic conferral of citizenship on any person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of the children’s parents”
This has never been the law or policy of the United States. The children of ambassadors have never been citizens of the United States.
The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
The Wong Kim Ark case provides does not establish a precedent. The parents of Wong Kim Ark were legal residents of the United States, not illegals.
A few years ago (in 2004), a referendum was held on birthright citizenship in Ireland. 79% of the Irish people voted to get rid of birthright citizenship. Predictably the left supported birthright citizenship to the bitter end and ranted about "racism". The people of Ireland saw through the left's deceit and voted Yes anyway.
Birthright citizenship is absurd on its face. So the Mongolian ambassador's wife gives birth in the embassy and the kid is American, not Mongolian? Silly. Oh, and it seems to me it's just as silly from a left wing as a right wing perspective.
Don't worry. The child of the Mongolian ambassador's wife has never been a US citizen.
That doesn't answer the hypothetical tho. The kid *would* be a US citizen, no? And 'worry' isn't the word -- the ambassador would just be put to some bother by the need to do whatever an ambassador would need to do in such a situation to insure that his kid was/became a citizen of it's real country.
Check out "Chapter 3 - Children Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats" and 8 CFR 101.3. The hypothetical child of Mongolian ambassador's wife would not be a US citizen. The governing federal law is the INA.
I'll take your word for it. Good to know that certain exceptions are already recognized. Common sense is welcome whenever it is shown.