Thank you for this article. A key issue with this topic is how abused this privilege is by people who come to the United States illegally and use their U.S. born children to become part of the government entitlement programs paid for by taxpayer money.
I agree that birthright citizenship has been abused. I think the right approach is to have the Supreme Court to clarify what the 14th amendment means, and we shouldn’t ignore the historical context of why the previous court interpreted that way. It’s concerning to use an EO to reinterpret Constitution. As I said in my piece, a future democratic president can do the same by declaring the 2nd amendment means something different.
Thank you for your views and the history of exclusion.
I believe that born in America to parents under the jurisdiction and laws of America should have the right to be an American citizen. Diplomats and illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the laws of America and their children should not have automatic birthright citizenship. Nor should people who are trying to get around the laws such as birth-tourism. I would add that the babies born here to those that are here with a permanent job or going to school should have the right to citizenship. I think Trump did the right thing, but that he went too far. Let's back down a little and allow birthright citizenship to babies born to parents who are working here or in school. A question I did not answer is about babies born to parents in the USA illegally for over 10 years (or pick any number).
Thank you for your feedback. I think most people with common sense can agree what categories of immigration status should be excluded from the birthright citizenship. Still, a Constitutional matter should be decided by the Supreme Court or having the U.S. Congress pass a new law.
I agree. It does not even need to be a "new law," just a clarification of the 14th Amendment. That can be done by either the Supreme Court or the Congress.
I suspect that Trump and his advisers knew an EO on this matter would be an overreach. They did it anyway because they wanted a lawsuit to challenge the EO so the Supreme Court would eventually have to step in to revisit the previous decision.
I want this resolved for everyone. I feel as though my American citizenship is being devalued via the derivative process. My mom was a LEGAL immigrant and my dad was an American citizen by birth. My mom followed the rules and her efforts to follow the correct path are being undermined.
I get it. I am a legal immigrant and my becoming an American journey took 17 years for doing the right thing. I can't tell you how frustrated most of us legal immigrants have felt especially in the last four years. The Democrats would much rather shower resources and attention to those who broke the law, while ignoring the long wait, the cost, the emotional tolls that immigrants who have followed law have to endure. We badly need a legal immigration reform. But the Democrats' open border policy has poisoned the well.
You are absolutely correct. I live near the southern border and I see this everywhere. My mom arrived in the U.S. from Canada in 1961. She became a citizen in 1967. She was an outstanding American citizen. I learned to value my American citizenship from her.
Thank you for offering your historical, reasoned, and personal perspective, Helen. Personally, I think the debate over birthright citizenship comes down largely about racial ideology, and these issues of national security and economics, while factors, are ultimately not as important to the strongest critics of birthright citizenship as is racism, as unfortunate as that is. As you detailed, the Supreme Court’s history makes clear that birthright citizenship is enshrined by more or less concrete precedent, and using an executive order is, frankly, an authoritarian way of trying to overturn this. I support birthright citizenship and think it does much good. Are there issues with it? Sure, but a blanket override of executive fiat of it is stupid, unconstitutional, and again, tinged with racial animosity.
Here is a quote from Peggy Noonan's WSJ column and Noonan was the speech writer for former President Reagan: "The heavy use of executive orders makes all politics personal, having to do with the man who orders and signs with a flourish. Making it personal distorts our understanding of what a leader can and should do. Executive orders ignore the branch of government called Congress and work against its authority, its role in the republican drama. They give the impression we are a government of one branch. Doing all this habituates the public to the idea of authoritarianism, of rule by the strongman."
"The framers of the Constitution entrusted the U.S. Supreme Court with the exclusive authority to interpret its language."
Not true; they didn't say anything on the subject. The Supremes' supremacy in this arena was established, so to speak, in Marbury vs. Madison, wherein Chief Justice John Marshall basically **took** the authority.
In her article above, Helen doesn't explicitly make the distinction that Wong Kim Ark's parents **hadn't** been here in violation of the law. So that's a real difference from the cases of today's anchor babies, wherein **both** parents are illegal aliens.
That's important, for as Investor's Business Daily put it in a 2005 editorial, "Becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol."
And that's really what it's all about. Detailed arguments about the congressional colloquies among the framers of the 14th Amendment could immediately be resolved by asking the question, "Do you **really** think those 14th Amendment framers would have disagreed with what the IBD editors wrote ~135 years later?" That's a question that answers itself.
It is not that I didn't make distinction about Wong's parent's immigration status. I wrote this sentence in the article, "Importantly, the Justices did not consider the parents’ immigration status, as the legal concept of illegal immigration did not exist at that time." Also, this article is not oppose to exclude illegal immigrants' children from birthright citizenship. Again, I specifically wrote, "In response, Trump proposed an executive order stating that children born to parents who entered the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas should not automatically receive citizenship. Most people with common sense will find such a proposal reasonable." As I stated in my piece clearly, my issues are two folds: one, EO is not a good way to reinterpret Constitution; and second, it is impossible to talk about birthright citizenship without discussing the United States v Wong Kim Ark. It is the ruling of that landmark case that gave the broad interpretation and application about birthright citizenship for over a century.
I have heard that the real problem is our immigration law. It would be very helpful if you would comment on this. It is alleged that our system is very cumbersome and slow. While we do want immigrants, we don't want criminals and gangs and I doubt we want Chinese spies coming in unfettered. There is no excuse for racism but there is little excuse for coming into this country illegally just because we have a very slow and unresponsive immigration process. Thanks for an insightful article. The meaning of the phrase in the Constitution "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be debated.
I have read that the drafter of the 14th amendment was very clear in his narrow interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Chris Baum
The U.S. legal immigration system is antiquated and broken. What we have today is a quota system primarily dictated by the 1965 Immigration Act and was later made even more complicated by the 1990 Immigration Act. The U.S. government grants about one million green cards annually. This annual quota is an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with economic reality nor labor-market demand. The emphasis on family reunion has crowded out immigrants with no familial connections in the U.S. but who are well educated or have skills and experiences to become productive citizens. The 1990 Immigration Act imposed a per-country limit of 7%, meaning no immigrants from a single country can receive more than 7% of the total number of visas that can be issued via family-sponsored and employer-sponsored channels in a given year, no matter the size of the population of the country of origin. This 7% rule skews the supply and demand of visas for nations that traditionally send us the most immigrants and exacerbates the wait time for applicants from four countries: China, Mexico, India, and the Philippines. In my case, my legal immigration journey took 17 years.
In Chapter 5 of my book on immigration, "The Broken Welcome Mat," I gave a pretty detail analysis of the long delay and backlogs of our legal immigration system. Maybe I will do a book excerpt for the next substack post. Thanks for a good suggestion.
This is a wonderful article. Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you for this article. A key issue with this topic is how abused this privilege is by people who come to the United States illegally and use their U.S. born children to become part of the government entitlement programs paid for by taxpayer money.
I agree that birthright citizenship has been abused. I think the right approach is to have the Supreme Court to clarify what the 14th amendment means, and we shouldn’t ignore the historical context of why the previous court interpreted that way. It’s concerning to use an EO to reinterpret Constitution. As I said in my piece, a future democratic president can do the same by declaring the 2nd amendment means something different.
I agree. Thank you. Executive orders are also being abused.
Hello Helen,
Thank you for your views and the history of exclusion.
I believe that born in America to parents under the jurisdiction and laws of America should have the right to be an American citizen. Diplomats and illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the laws of America and their children should not have automatic birthright citizenship. Nor should people who are trying to get around the laws such as birth-tourism. I would add that the babies born here to those that are here with a permanent job or going to school should have the right to citizenship. I think Trump did the right thing, but that he went too far. Let's back down a little and allow birthright citizenship to babies born to parents who are working here or in school. A question I did not answer is about babies born to parents in the USA illegally for over 10 years (or pick any number).
Thank you for your feedback. I think most people with common sense can agree what categories of immigration status should be excluded from the birthright citizenship. Still, a Constitutional matter should be decided by the Supreme Court or having the U.S. Congress pass a new law.
I agree. It does not even need to be a "new law," just a clarification of the 14th Amendment. That can be done by either the Supreme Court or the Congress.
I suspect that Trump and his advisers knew an EO on this matter would be an overreach. They did it anyway because they wanted a lawsuit to challenge the EO so the Supreme Court would eventually have to step in to revisit the previous decision.
I want this resolved for everyone. I feel as though my American citizenship is being devalued via the derivative process. My mom was a LEGAL immigrant and my dad was an American citizen by birth. My mom followed the rules and her efforts to follow the correct path are being undermined.
I get it. I am a legal immigrant and my becoming an American journey took 17 years for doing the right thing. I can't tell you how frustrated most of us legal immigrants have felt especially in the last four years. The Democrats would much rather shower resources and attention to those who broke the law, while ignoring the long wait, the cost, the emotional tolls that immigrants who have followed law have to endure. We badly need a legal immigration reform. But the Democrats' open border policy has poisoned the well.
You are absolutely correct. I live near the southern border and I see this everywhere. My mom arrived in the U.S. from Canada in 1961. She became a citizen in 1967. She was an outstanding American citizen. I learned to value my American citizenship from her.
Thank you for offering your historical, reasoned, and personal perspective, Helen. Personally, I think the debate over birthright citizenship comes down largely about racial ideology, and these issues of national security and economics, while factors, are ultimately not as important to the strongest critics of birthright citizenship as is racism, as unfortunate as that is. As you detailed, the Supreme Court’s history makes clear that birthright citizenship is enshrined by more or less concrete precedent, and using an executive order is, frankly, an authoritarian way of trying to overturn this. I support birthright citizenship and think it does much good. Are there issues with it? Sure, but a blanket override of executive fiat of it is stupid, unconstitutional, and again, tinged with racial animosity.
Here is a quote from Peggy Noonan's WSJ column and Noonan was the speech writer for former President Reagan: "The heavy use of executive orders makes all politics personal, having to do with the man who orders and signs with a flourish. Making it personal distorts our understanding of what a leader can and should do. Executive orders ignore the branch of government called Congress and work against its authority, its role in the republican drama. They give the impression we are a government of one branch. Doing all this habituates the public to the idea of authoritarianism, of rule by the strongman."
"The framers of the Constitution entrusted the U.S. Supreme Court with the exclusive authority to interpret its language."
Not true; they didn't say anything on the subject. The Supremes' supremacy in this arena was established, so to speak, in Marbury vs. Madison, wherein Chief Justice John Marshall basically **took** the authority.
In her article above, Helen doesn't explicitly make the distinction that Wong Kim Ark's parents **hadn't** been here in violation of the law. So that's a real difference from the cases of today's anchor babies, wherein **both** parents are illegal aliens.
That's important, for as Investor's Business Daily put it in a 2005 editorial, "Becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol."
And that's really what it's all about. Detailed arguments about the congressional colloquies among the framers of the 14th Amendment could immediately be resolved by asking the question, "Do you **really** think those 14th Amendment framers would have disagreed with what the IBD editors wrote ~135 years later?" That's a question that answers itself.
It is not that I didn't make distinction about Wong's parent's immigration status. I wrote this sentence in the article, "Importantly, the Justices did not consider the parents’ immigration status, as the legal concept of illegal immigration did not exist at that time." Also, this article is not oppose to exclude illegal immigrants' children from birthright citizenship. Again, I specifically wrote, "In response, Trump proposed an executive order stating that children born to parents who entered the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas should not automatically receive citizenship. Most people with common sense will find such a proposal reasonable." As I stated in my piece clearly, my issues are two folds: one, EO is not a good way to reinterpret Constitution; and second, it is impossible to talk about birthright citizenship without discussing the United States v Wong Kim Ark. It is the ruling of that landmark case that gave the broad interpretation and application about birthright citizenship for over a century.
I have heard that the real problem is our immigration law. It would be very helpful if you would comment on this. It is alleged that our system is very cumbersome and slow. While we do want immigrants, we don't want criminals and gangs and I doubt we want Chinese spies coming in unfettered. There is no excuse for racism but there is little excuse for coming into this country illegally just because we have a very slow and unresponsive immigration process. Thanks for an insightful article. The meaning of the phrase in the Constitution "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can be debated.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/24/should-birthright-citizenship-be-abolished/birthright-citizenship-is-not-actually-in-the-constitution
I have read that the drafter of the 14th amendment was very clear in his narrow interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Chris Baum
The U.S. legal immigration system is antiquated and broken. What we have today is a quota system primarily dictated by the 1965 Immigration Act and was later made even more complicated by the 1990 Immigration Act. The U.S. government grants about one million green cards annually. This annual quota is an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with economic reality nor labor-market demand. The emphasis on family reunion has crowded out immigrants with no familial connections in the U.S. but who are well educated or have skills and experiences to become productive citizens. The 1990 Immigration Act imposed a per-country limit of 7%, meaning no immigrants from a single country can receive more than 7% of the total number of visas that can be issued via family-sponsored and employer-sponsored channels in a given year, no matter the size of the population of the country of origin. This 7% rule skews the supply and demand of visas for nations that traditionally send us the most immigrants and exacerbates the wait time for applicants from four countries: China, Mexico, India, and the Philippines. In my case, my legal immigration journey took 17 years.
This would make a great substack post. Chris
In Chapter 5 of my book on immigration, "The Broken Welcome Mat," I gave a pretty detail analysis of the long delay and backlogs of our legal immigration system. Maybe I will do a book excerpt for the next substack post. Thanks for a good suggestion.