The Corner

Law & the Courts

Kick-Starting the Birthright-Citizenship Debate

President Trump speaks during the “Our Pledge to America’s Workers” event at the White House in Washington, D.C., October 31, 2018. (Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS)

Robert VerBruggen does a nice job on the homepage today of laying out the arguments for and against the assertion that the 14th Amendment mandates automatic citizenship at birth for the children of illegal aliens (and tourists, foreign students, visa workers, etc.). Even though he concludes that the Constitution does require it, he makes clear there are smart people who come to a different conclusion. I’m with Ramesh, who earlier this year counseled some humility in this often-contentious discussion: “Would it kill all these debaters to admit … that since there were no illegal immigrants in the United States at the time the amendment was adopted, nobody involved in the debate was thinking about how to treat their children? That applying it to these children is therefore a tricky interpretive question?”

But the immediate issue is not the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment, nor the merit of a policy of automatic citizenship at birth for the children of illegals and tourists. Instead, the question should be, how to get the Supreme Court to rule on this “tricky interpretive question,” one way or the other? Neither the Court nor Congress nor any president has formally addressed this issue. Our current practice of awarding citizenship to anyone born here (including to children of diplomats, despite claims to the contrary) simply happened, without any decision that we should pursue such a policy.

Forcing some kind of formal decision would be the point of any executive order on birthright citizenship. Andy McCarthy is skeptical of such a move, despite favoring a change in our citizenship policies, because he argues that it would be beyond the president’s power. And he’s right if President Trump thinks he can simply decree that from this day forth, only children born here of citizens or legal residents are themselves citizens.

But a narrowly tailored order, specifically related to the administrative functions of the executive, would be a good vehicle for clarifying the issue. The president has every right to his own interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional or statutory phrase. He can declare that he interprets “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean that only kids of citizens and permanent residents should get automatic citizenship at birth, and that this interpretation bars, say, the State Department from issuing passports to the newborn children of birth tourists. (Not issuing Social Security numbers to newborns who don’t have at least one citizen or green-card parent would be more difficult in a practical sense because of the central role of state health departments in the process.)

Once the first few Chinese or Russian or Turkish maternity tourists were denied passports the ACLU would file suit in San Francisco federal district court on their behalf, the court would enjoin the new policy, the Ninth Circuit would uphold the lower court, and the case would come before the Supreme Court.

If Congress were to pass a new nationality law, clearly laying out what categories of people are covered by “subject to the jurisdiction”, the response would be the same – lawsuit, injunction, appeal, SCOTUS. The problem is that Congress will never do that – it won’t even pass a spending bill unless a deadline forces it to. That’s why it’s important for the executive to act, so as to set the process in motion.

Constitutionalists rightly decry SCOTUS’s evolution into a super-legislature, but settling this kind of dispute is the very reason we have a Supreme Court. But it can’t settle a dispute until the dispute is brought to it. Whichever way the Court were to rule, the losers would argue that the case was badly decided – but at least it would be decided. Once that happened, the various parties could then consider the next move — maybe a new nationality law, if the Court rules in the president’s favor, or a (quixotic, in my opinion) push for a constitutional amendment if the Court overturns the president’s interpretation.

I’m with Jonathan Turley on this: “the benefit of the order is that it could finally force the courts to resolve this question with clarity and finality.” Since the four Democratic justices on the Court would obviously vote to overturn any limitation on automatic birth citizenship, they’d need only one of the Republican justices to prevail (Roberts seems like the most likely candidate). But even that decision would be preferable to rhetorically plowing the same ground over and over again, with no political or legal effect.

My own policy preference is to limit citizenship at birth to children with at least one citizen or permanent-resident parent, but with a kind of statute of limitations, conferring citizenship on others who were born here only if they live in the U.S. for the first 10 years of their lives (as Australia does) or upon completion of the eighth grade (as Yale law professor Peter Schuck suggests).

But whatever one’s policy preference, everyone should welcome a move by the president to clarify this issue. It’s long overdue.

Mark Krikorian, a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues, has served as Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) since 1995.

Most Popular


Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More