Politicians are debating whether or not to allow undocumented immigrants into the country. It has been reported that around 6.3 million foreign nationals have entered the country under the current administration.
An additional concern is the interpretation of “birthright citizenship,” which grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born within the geographical borders of the United States. This policy includes the children of temporary visitors (such as those on work, study, or vacation visas) and those in the country illegally.
Some individuals who prioritize their country and the value of being a citizen disagree with awarding citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants. Those who support this policy, primarily from liberal perspectives, view it as a chance to acquire potential voters for their political party and establish a lasting majority.
Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has introduced his “No Excuses” plan to tackle illegal immigration, which includes forceful actions like putting a stop to illegal entries and building a border wall. DeSantis has promised to use his executive authority and political connections to make sure the wall is built, particularly in the areas of the U.S.-Mexico border that don’t have adequate barriers, which add up to over 600 miles.
The plan aims to challenge the idea that children of undocumented immigrants have the right to obtain citizenship by birth. Granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrants is believed to be a significant driver of illegal migration. DeSantis argues that this policy contradicts the original intent of the 14th Amendment and urges the courts and Congress to address this issue.
Former President Donald Trump, another prominent Republican candidate, had also pledged to end birthright citizenship, claiming he would do so through an executive order on his first day in office.
Supporters of birthright citizenship argue that the first sentence of the 14th Amendment justifies their position. The United States Constitution declares that individuals who are born or naturalized in the country and fall under its jurisdiction are citizens of both the United States and the state in which they reside. This statement sometimes disregards the importance of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Including this qualifying phrase points to the child’s political allegiance inherited from their parents. Being physically present within a country’s borders and subject to its laws does not automatically confer citizenship upon a baby or their parents.
Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, provides insight into the original meaning of the qualifying phrase. He explains that critics mistakenly believe that anyone in the United States has subjected themselves to its jurisdiction, extending citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens. However, the framers of the 14th Amendment intended the phrase to refer to an individual’s political allegiance and the jurisdiction of a foreign government over them.
Von Spakovsky refers to past Supreme Court decisions that support this interpretation. The Slaughter-House case of 1872 and the Elk vs. Wilkins case of 1884 affirmed that the qualifying phrase aimed to exclude children born to foreign diplomats and citizens or subjects of foreign countries within the United States.
Even the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case, often cited by supporters of birthright citizenship, only granted citizenship to the child of Chinese citizens because the parents were legal residents of the U.S. The case’s verdict was specific to lawful, permanent residents, and it does not automatically apply to children born to individuals in the country illegally.
With the current situation of a large number of immigrants coming in, some of whom don’t have valid asylum claims but have been taught to take advantage of the system, it’s important to reconsider the importance of the qualifying phrase in the 14th Amendment. This provides a compelling reason to support the candidacies of Trump or DeSantis and thoroughly examine the original intent behind this constitutional provision.