If you were wondering how long it would take for Democrats to reimburse the Trump presidency, we have an answer. Eighteen Democrat state attorneys general, four more Democrat state AGs, and a number of outside organizations led by the American Civil Liberties Union filed federal lawsuits over President Donald Trump’s professional get robbing illegal immigration of the right to citizenship for children. Their claim is essentially untrue in the court of law that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that virtually everyone born here is granted heritage citizenship. The authorities may take advantage of this opportunity to correct it.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War, stipulates that” all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and content to its control, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The plaintiffs emphasize the first part of the argument but only briefly examine the second, contending that people born in the United States is” subject to its jurisdiction” simply because they are located within its borders.
They accomplish this by almost wholly relying on the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which the plaintiffs essentially get bad. In Wong, the jury determined that a San Francisco native who was brought up in China was a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. Omitting some important information, the plaintiffs argue this means that all babies born in the United States of all immigrant families, with the aforementioned very rare instances, instantly are U. S. people. Even a brief study of the view, however, shows that the Supreme Court ruled nothing of the kind.
Wong was born in California and spent the rest of his life there before making two trips to China as an child to visit his family. The first time he returned to the United States, he was admitted through conventions as a U. S. member. After a traditions official determined that he was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens of the United States when he was born here, he was denied parole a few years after after making a second visit to China.
Wong‘s case was decided by SCOTUS, but for a very significant reason the defendants ignore the fact that Wong‘s families were constitutional newcomers to the US. Therefore, it is completely and clearly wrong to support the defendants ‘ claim that SCOTUS has already upheld citizenship for children of illegal immigrants as a result of this ruling.
In its judgment, SCOTUS went a step further into the definition of” subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The phrase is rooted in a mutual relationship of “allegiance and protection” between the individual and the sovereign ( historically a king, but the nation here ), according to what they discovered, dating back hundreds of years through English common law. Kids “born in the allegiance”, and so people entitled to “protection” at conception, included children born to subjects of the prince, as well as children born to “aliens in cooperation” — that is, aliens freely “domiciled” there with the queen’s consent. Importantly, the jury determined that this did not include the children of aliens who were “hostilely occupying a portion of our place.”
The key term is acceptance. The Supreme Court made it clear in its decision in favor of Wong that noncitizens like Wong’s parents are entitled to the defense of, and owe allegiance to, the United States as long as they are permitted by the United States to live there (emphasis added ). In Wong’s case, this meant that the 14th Amendment granted him citizenship because he was ( 1 ) born in the United States, and ( 2 ) subject to its jurisdiction because his parents were lawful immigrants who were permitted by the United States to reside there at the time he was born.
In stark contrast, babies born to illegal immigrants are no” subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and are therefore not entitled to heritage membership under the 14th Amendment for the simple explanation that the United States has never allowed them to be here. In other words, the partnership is not common.
If a child is born to an alien national here legally but on a temporary basis, such as a tourist or a person on a work visa, the 14th Amendment may raise a more important issue. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t explicitly address this, but it does note that Wong’s parents were “domiciled” in the United States, and it concludes that” ]e ] very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States” (emphasis added ). This repeated reference to “domicile”, meaning a state of permanent, legitimate residence, suggests that birthright citizenship at a minimum requires an intent to live freely and entirely in the United States, even if that intent after changes.
The 18 Democrat state AGs in their lawsuit contend that the president “has no authority to rewrite or repeal a constitutional amendment or constitutionally enacted statute.” ( Where were they a week ago when President Biden attempted to ratify a new, personal-fiat 28th Amendment? ) But Trump isn’t rewriting the 14th Amendment, he’s applying the law as it is, based on its plain language and the Supreme Court’s existing precedent. That, at least, shouldn’t be controversial.
Matthew Raymer was previously the Republican National Committee’s chief counsel and a recent Institute of Politics resident fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.
