Clarifying Birthright Citizenship
On the topic of Birthright Citizenship, I’ve seen a lot of misunderstanding. Particularly around the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS decision of 1898 in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. There is also a lot of disinformation both from the media, as well as the lawsuit filed by multiple states to stop Trump's Executive Order on the matter. I’ve seen a lot of folks say that this has already been settled and that since Wong was born here and granted citizenship, that means anybody born here is a citizen. I literally had a guy yesterday tell me that slavery is waiting right around the corner should this EO stand. So let’s take a look at this, with screenshots of the documents of course. Hat Tip Robert Gouveia🧢
The 14th Amendment
The key part of the text in the 14th amendment can be found in section 1 right at the beginning and 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.”
Per the 14th amendment, so far we’ve established that anyone born or naturalized within the US becomes a US citizen, right? Not so fast. For the purpose of what we’re talking about, pay special attention to the phrase: “,And subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and keep that in mind while we tie this together with both the SCOTUS decision of 1898 and the Executive Order Protecting The Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Back in the late 1800’s there was a husband and wife from China who lived in San Francisco and had a child whose citizenship became the topic of a case which was heard and decided by the Supreme Court. In the summary of this SCOTUS decision it says of Wong Kim’s parents that they are:
"parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States"
What does this tell us about their situation? It tells us that Wong’s parents were subject to the Emperor of China, but have domicile and residence the United States, which means that his parents were here both legally, and had an intent to stay. They went through the proper channels to be here but had not yet been granted citizenship.
To better understand this let’s look at a definition of what it means to have domicile:
As you can see, in a nutshell to have domicile means that you have a primary residence with the intent to stay here indefinitely and make the US your permanent home. Now you might say “Well yea, isn’t that what the intent of illegals is too? To stay here indefinitely and permanently?” I’d say that’s a valid question. However, this is where we circle back to the text in the 14th Amendment that says “and is subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
This is the major difference between the Wong case and the case attempting to be made for illegals today. When you come here legally and go through the proper channels like Wong’s parents, you have submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States by going through the process. Illegals on the other hand have not. They are operating outside of it by coming here illegally. They are not submitting themselves to US Jurisdiction via the law because it’s impossible to submit to the law while not submitting to it at the same time.
This is the argument being made in Trump’s EO and I believe it’s in perfect alignment with both the SCOTUS decision in the Kim case, as well as the 14th amendment. He is executing the law according to the constitution like a president is supposed to do. Like a president takes an oath to do. Let’s take a look at the EO:
Easy enough to understand, right? In the statement "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the word "And" implies that there are also situations in which a person is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What are those situations? The next paragraph clarifies exactly what they are:
We can see here that there are 2 scenarios outlined:
- When the mother is here illegally and the father is not a citizen,
- When the mother is here legally but temporarily as in the case of a visa waiver program or student work, and the father is not a citizen.
In neither of these cases is there domicile, which as we already covered above, means to establish a permemant residence with an intent to stay here indefinitely and permanently.
Destroying The Misinformation
Let’s dispel some misinformation. Here are couple things I’ve seen people say, but that this Executive Order is not doing:
- It’s not retroactive. Children of illegals that have already been born aren’t going to suddenly have the citizenship they’ve been granted stripped. The EO says that it will go into effect for children born to illegals who are born 30 days after the execution of the EO
- The President is not amending The 14th Amendment. Nothing in The Amendment is being changed, altered, or usurped by the EO. Rather, the EO is seeking to uphold the 14th amendment in both the letter and the intent by only granting citizenship to children of parents who are here legally with an intent to stay. we can see that intent in the agreed upon facts of the Wong decision....that his parents had domicile, therefore he became a citizen. Being here legally does not automatically mean that a would-be parent has been granted citizenship, as in this case with Wong Kim’s parents. But they WERE subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they were here legally with an intent to stay. And per the EO, we can also see that being here legally does not always equate to having an intent to stay.
Wrap Up
The big idea is that when you come here legally and have domicile, you have an intent to stay here with the ability to actually accomplish it. Why is this important? Because it’s much less likely that you are going to have a child and then have to be separated from it after getting kicked out for coming illegally, OR, after leaving once your temporary visit is over. This is exactly what libs are crying about right now.
So it’s either you come here legally, if you have a child they are granted citizenship while you as parents complete the naturalization process. After which you all live here together. Or, the alternative is that you come here illegally, have a child, but because you didn’t submit to “The jurisdiction thereof,” That child does not become a citizen, and all 3 of you are deported together.
This is how you keep families together. You don’t keep families together by trampling the U.S. Constitution because you’re in your feels about the conditions in whatever country they’ve come from, or because you think our immigration process sucks. You encourage them to come legally or not at all. Those officials who are actively opposing this have an agenda and you should be asking what that agenda is now. But that’s topic for another article.
Hopefully this helps!
