The President And Birthright Citizenship.

Shockingly, He’s Wrong Again.

In what is most likely an election eve post to fire up his immigrant hating base, Trump has declared that he can unilaterally, through no process other than the stroke of his arbitrary and capricious pen, end birthright citizenship by executive order. There is a small stumbling block to his plan, the Constitution of the United States. In particular, a provision of the 14th Amendment which reads as follows:

“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.” — 14th Amendment.

Since passage this provision has been understood to confer citizenship status to almost any person born on American soil. As a concept for our laws it predates this nation. Like much American law it is an extension of English common law, in this case the doctrine of jus soli (right of the soil).

Given the plain language of the 14th Amendment, by what fantasy does Trump believe he can end this doctrine by executive order? It’s a legal theory advanced by very few, frankly rogue, legal scholars who focus on the phrase “.” Under this almost ignored (until Trump resurrected it) theory, illegal immigrants and their children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because they are still citizens of the foreign country they came from.

There are many problems with this. First, being a citizen of one country does not generally preclude also being a citizen of another. My grandson, born in Germany to American parents, is such a dual citizen, and yes he has a passport from both nations. Second, if these people are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States that would mean they could not be prosecuted by the United States for crimes they commit here. I doubt Trump would accept that.

Of course, my own opinions on this are not very relevant. Rather, the precedents of the United States Supreme Court are. The most relevant case is , 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Wong Kim Ark was born on American soil as the son of Chinese parents. The Supreme Court found him to be an American citizen. In so doing, the Supreme Court rather plainly said:

Amazingly, the President’s defenders on this find these apparently direct words unpersuasive. They argue Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally, and that makes all the difference. The court really doesn’t say that, but let’s move on.

The problem with Trump’s theory is that the Supreme Court in this case quite clearly defined what is meant by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” and the court did so in the traditional, very limited manner.

Gosh, that seemed pretty on point. The court continues:

So “subject to the jurisdiction of” excludes two classes, and only two classes. Those are children of diplomats and enemy soldiers. That’s it.

The attempt to distinguish on grounds that his parents were legally here still fails because the court so precisely repudiated Trump’s claim that “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes the children of illegal aliens. Since they are not children of diplomats, or occupying enemy soldiers, the phrase does not apply to them, and like Wong Kim Ark, they are citizens.

The claim that the Supreme Court has not addressed this is simply false. Unless you are a naturalized citizen your claim to United States citizenship is by birthright. Every American should fear a President who believes he can alter that definition on his own whim.

Image for post
Image for post

Written by

Retired lawyer & Army vet in The Villages of Florida. Lifelong: Republican (pre-Trump), Constitution buff, science nerd & dog lover. Twitter: @KeithDB80

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store