Trump's Case Against Birthright Citizenship Is a Constitutional Loser
Drafted in 1866 and ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment declares in its first section that "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."
The current legal debate over birthright citizenship centers on the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." So, what does it mean?
According to Trump, a child who is born in the United States, but whose "mother was unlawfully present" and whose "father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident," is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and is therefore ineligible for birthright citizenship. Likewise, according to Trump, a child who is born in the U.S. but whose "mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa)," and whose "father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident," is also ineligible.
But illegal immigrants and temporary lawful visitors are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as that phrase was originally understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
To understand why, let's start with the text, as originally understood circa 1866-1868. The 1865 edition of Noah Webster's popular An American Dictionary of the English Language defined "jurisdiction," when applied to a government, as meaning the "power of governing or legislating," "the right of making or enforcing laws," and "the power or right of exercising authority." In other words, to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States meant to be subject to U.S. law and authority. It meant that a person must follow U.S. law or else face punishment in the U.S. legal system.
And guess who must follow U.S. law or else face punishment in the U.S. legal system? Illegal immigrants and lawful temporary visitors.
This meaning of "jurisdiction" was already well-established in U.S. case law at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption. Consider Chief Justice John Marshall's 1812 opinion in Schooner Exchange v. McFadden. "When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other," Marshall wrote, "it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country." Put differently, when foreigners are present on U.S. soil, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
The congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment provide additional evidence in support of this original understanding. Sen. Jacob Howard (R–Mich.), for example, shepherded the amendment to passage as its floor manager in the Senate. As Howard explained in a widely reprinted 1866 speech, while birthright citizenship would not extend to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States," those eligible for birthright citizenship "will include every other class of persons."
As you can see, Howard specified two classes of U.S.-born children who are ineligible for birthright citizenship: those whose parents are "ambassadors" and those whose parents are "foreign ministers." What makes those two sets of parents different? The answer is simple: Ambassadors and foreign ministers have diplomatic immunity and are thus not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The U.S-born children of invading foreign troops are likewise excluded from birthright citizenship under this original understanding, since foreign troops are subject to the laws of war, not to the laws of whatever country they are fighting in.
"Every other class" of U.S.-born children, however, is eligible for birthright citizenship, including the children of permanent resident aliens, of temporary visiting aliens, and of illegal aliens. Why? Because those classes of aliens are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They all must follow U.S. law or else face punishment in the U.S. legal system.
Even the congressional opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment shared this original understanding of birthright citizenship. Sen. Edgar Cowen (R–Pa.), for example, demanded to know if "the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania" would be a citizen. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent," Cowen squealed, "while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?"
Cowen understood that the U.S.-born children of unpopular immigrants would become citizens if the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Indeed, that understanding was a key reason why Cowen opposed the amendment in the first place. Needless to say, when both sides of such a dispute agree on the meaning of a constitutional provision, that real-time agreement provides valuable historical evidence about the provision's original meaning.
So, contra Trump, the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment are clear: If a child is born on U.S. soil, and that child's parents are not diplomats, foreign ministers, or invading foreign troops, then that child is a U.S. citizen at birth.
There are several justices now sitting on the Supreme Court who claim to care about the original meaning of the Constitution. If those justices are serious, they will treat Trump's case against birthright citizenship as the constitutional loser that it is.
The post Trump's Case Against Birthright Citizenship Is a Constitutional Loser appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
New aerial footage captures ‘Alligator Alcatraz' from above
New aerial footage is showing another view of the high-security immigration detention center in Florida's Everglades coined "Alligator Alcatraz." Under Gov. Ron DeSantis' directive, the facility opened on an airstrip earlier this month for thousands of undocumented immigrants while also serving as a "transitional shelter for migrants." The tent city was set up at Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport located around 45 miles west of Miami and is only accessible through a two-lane highway, Reuters reported. Video shows the facility filled with rows of white tents, RVs and portable buildings all surrounded by a vast wetland. Officials have described the center as "escape-proof" due to its terrain. The Everglades is home to alligators, crocodiles, various snakes and the Florida panther, according the National Park Service. Florida's Division of Emergency Management oversees the site in coordination with federal agencies including ICE, Reuters reported. The state estimates the facility would cost more than $450 million annually to operate. See new angle of Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' facility Trump says its 'might be as good as the real Alcatraz' After touring the facility on July 1, President Donald Trump praised Florida officials for picking the isolated wilderness spot, adding "I think it's great government what we've done." "They did this in less than a week," Trump said, according to Reuters. "You look at it and it's incredible. … It might be as good as the real Alcatraz. Well, that's a spooky one, too. That's a tough site." Trump added that the center is "not a place I want to go hiking anytime soon" and that "the only way out is really deportation." The new facility comes as immigration advocates continue to express concerns over capacity at state and national detention centers amid Trump Administration's increased pace of immigrant apprehensions and removals from the United States. Critics have condemned the new detention facility for holding people without a criminal record and for conditions inside. The New York Times reported earlier this month that only about 60% of the detainees have criminal convictions and that 900 men are sleeping in tents. Others have voiced concerns over the facility's impact over the Everglade's itself, home to 36 threatened or endangered species, according to the National Park Service. Contributing: Fernando Cervantes Jr., USA TODAY and Antonio Fins, Palm Beach Post


New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Venezuelan Little League team denied travel visas to US for World Series
A Little League baseball team from Venezuela has been denied visas into the US, leaving them unable to play in the Senior League World Series in South Carolina, officials said Friday. Little League International announced in a statement that the Cacique Mara team couldn't 'obtain the appropriate visas' to head the tournament after first traveling to Colombia two weeks ago. The team, which hails from Maracaibo, Venezuela, was expecting to participate in the Senior League World Series in Easley after winning the Latin American Little League championship in Mexico on June 16. Advertisement 3 Players from the Bronx and Curcao meet at the pitching mound together after the game at the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA, in 2001. New York Post Senior League Baseball celebrated the Venezuelan victory, writing in a social media post, 'See you all in 40 days for the first pitch!' Now, Cacique Mara has lambasted Little League officials following the disappointing announcement and their failure to secure passage to the States. Advertisement 'It is a mockery on the part of Little League to keep us here in Bogota with the hope that our children can fulfill their dreams of participating in a world championship,' a statement from the team read. 'What do we do with such injustice, what do we do with the pain that was caused to our children?' It is not immediately clear the reason the team was denied travel visas. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently met with opposition leaders in Venezuela who oppose current President Nicolas Maduro, who the former Florida senator has called 'illegitimate.' Advertisement 3 Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently met with opposition leaders to Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. REUTERS Little League International announced that the team from Venezuela will be replaced by the second place Latin American team, Santa Maria de Aguayo Little League from Victoria, Mexico. The Trump administration issued partial travel bans on seven countries including Venezuela earlier this month — tacking on full bans for 12 other countries — citing national security concerns. 'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm, and nothing will stop us from keeping America safe,' President Trump said in a video posted to X on June 4. Advertisement Cuba, which appears on the new travel restrictions list, has previously fielded teams in the Little League World Series and used to have its own dedicated region in the international baseball organization. 3 President Trump announced new travel restrictions on over a dozen countries earlier this month. / MEGA No team from Cuba qualified for the Senior or Little World Series tournament this year. The Senior League World Series will be played from July 26 through August 2. The US State Department did not respond to The Post's request for comment.


The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
6 in 10 voters view Democrats negatively: WSJ poll
The Democratic Party is viewed negatively by 63 percent of American voters — the lowest approval rating of the party in more than 30 years of The Wall Street Journal's surveys — according to a new poll from the newspaper. The survey found that while voters disapproved of President Trump's handling of a variety of issues, they generally said they trusted Republicans more than Democrats to take care of those issues in Congress. On tariffs, for instance, voters disapproved of Trump's policies by 17 percentage points, but trusted Republican lawmakers more than Democrats on the issue by seven points. Only 8 percent of voters viewed Democrats 'very favorably' in the poll. President Trump himself had an approval rating of 46 percent. The Wall Street Journal poll follows a survey from CNN released Thursday which found that just 28 percent of voters viewed the Democrats favorably. Democrats are confronting widespread voter malaise and perceptions that the party is listless ahead of the 2026 midterms as key parts of the party's national infrastructure have been rocked by infighting. Still, they are seeking to capitalize on Trump's more unpopular policies. They hope the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' with tax cuts favoring the wealthy alongside significant cuts to Medicaid and other social services, could galvanize voters. A slight majority — 52 percent — of voters in Friday's Journal poll disapproved of the bill. The ongoing controversy over the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a flashpoint for MAGA voters that Democrats have sought to exploit — may also come into play as members of Congress head home for the August recess. The Journal's poll found that voters were highly skeptical that the Justice Department had thoroughly investigated the issue, with 65 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans saying they had 'no confidence' in the department's review. The poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted between July 16 and July 20 with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. It was conducted by Democratic pollster John Anzalone and GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio.