A serious, principled case against automatic birthright citizenship for children of individuals in the country unlawfully must begin with the Constitution itself, not slogans, but structure, intent, and consistent legal interpretation.
The key phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment is not simply “born in the United States,” but “born… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That second clause is not decorative; it is a limiting principle. The central question is what “jurisdiction” meant to those who drafted and ratified the amendment in 1868.
At that time, “jurisdiction” was widely understood to mean full political allegiance, not merely being subject to laws in a general sense, but owing complete and undivided loyalty to the United States. This is why well-recognized exceptions existed even then: children of foreign diplomats, occupying enemy forces, and certain sovereign tribal affiliations were excluded because they were not fully subject to U.S. political authority.
The modern expansion of birthright citizenship rests on the assumption that anyone physically present, regardless of legal status, is automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” in the constitutional sense. That interpretation effectively reads the limiting clause out of the amendment.
A more textually faithful interpretation recognizes that individuals who are in the country in violation of its laws have not been admitted into the political community and therefore cannot unilaterally confer citizenship through their presence. Citizenship, in this view, is not an incidental byproduct of geography but a legal and political status tied to allegiance and lawful incorporation into the nation.
This reasoning aligns with the broader interpretive approach often associated with Antonin Scalia, that general legal principles must be applied consistently to new circumstances without abandoning their original meaning. The principle underlying the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure citizenship for those fully under U.S. sovereignty, particularly formerly enslaved persons, not to create an open-ended rule detached from lawful presence or allegiance.
Moreover, the fairness argument carries real weight. Legal immigrants often spend years navigating a complex, costly process to obtain citizenship. Granting automatic citizenship to the children of those who have bypassed that process raises legitimate concerns about equal treatment under the law. A system perceived as inconsistent or easily circumvented risks undermining respect for legal immigration itself.
There are also policy implications. A rule that guarantees citizenship regardless of parental status can act as a pull factor, incentivizing unlawful entry. While humanitarian concerns must always be part of the discussion, immigration policy must also consider long-term impacts on national cohesion, resource allocation, and the integrity of the legal system.
Even John Roberts has emphasized in various contexts the importance of not stretching narrow historical exceptions into sweeping new doctrines without clear constitutional grounding. The question is not whether hard cases exist, but whether the Constitution compels the broad rule currently applied.
None of this diminishes the humanity or dignity of those involved. Children are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. But constitutional interpretation and public policy must be guided by coherent principles, not solely by sympathetic outcomes.
In sum, a strong case against automatic birthright citizenship for children of those unlawfully present rests on three pillars:
The original meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as requiring full political allegiance.
The importance of maintaining a consistent and fair legal immigration system.
The need to preserve the integrity of constitutional limits rather than expanding them beyond their text and historical understanding.
This is not a rejection of immigration—it is an argument for restoring clarity, fairness, and constitutional fidelity to how citizenship is granted.
President Trump went to the Supreme Court yesterday in another first for a US President. His presence makes the activist judges on the bench realize that this issue needs to be settled one way only, the way the President of the United States enforces the law. Period. I don't think they'll dare to defy him.
He always has McCarren-Walter Immigration Act, that gives him authority to keep out any group from any country for any reason for as long as he wants. Congress ceded part of their authority to POTUS in case of time like these times, when we are being overtaken by migrants/aliens.
The problem with birthright is mainly the ones who come here to give birth, then take the child back to a country to raise them as the enemy with the right to vote! This is the most dangerous part of birthright! Trump would have to shut down all travel to all countries not knowing who is going to use it in this manner, or for all foreign pregnant women. Don't we find it curious that very pregnant women chose to travel in the last stage of pregnancy to a country stupid enough to give citizenship to babies who's mothers are not citizens nor do they live in the USA?
This idiotic Supreme Court is going to f this up!
Paul Simmon > ilona TrommlerApril 3, 2026 at 8:58am
Ilona, I expect the same as you do. And it is yet another reason why President Trump needs to do something about the judiciary that keeps getting in the way of his agenda. In my mind there is only one way to remedy the situation: President Trump needs to assume full and direct authority over the judiciary, clean it up, put judges on the bench that are loyal to him and support his agents. What other options do you see?
He doesn't have the authority Paul! There's a reason for the three branches, no one should have full authority. The answer is a well informed voting public....not a dictator! You love the man so much yet you are willing see him become a dictator! That's where great education comes in!
Paul Simmon > ilona TrommlerApril 3, 2026 at 1:40pm
The voting public doesn't have much say when it comes to judges, especially at higher level courts. If we want to make sure the voting public only votes for people who appoint good judges, we will have to get rid of the demonrat party and have a one party system. Otherwise you'll always have anti-American demonrats appoint activist judges. I know you don't like that option, either. So, what cash realistically be done?
We could have a say with the justices if we had a states called Article-V amendment proposal convention and createdm an amendmenmt thjat allowed the American citizens to overrule any government bnureau or agency along with courts by a 3/4 vote to overrule a specific regulation rule or law.
Paul Simmon > The TradesmanApril 4, 2026 at 5:27pm
The Tradesman, that's a huge long shot and not a realist option. Article V invoked by 34 states, 3/4 of the vote,...not likely to happen.
We elect every single judge who then will rule over us if we should get into that position! That is important! It all begins there! You can push you narrative of one party all you want, it's against everything in our constitution. The founders could have made George Washington a king.......but they didn't! Yes, we will have crazy leftist judges as long as we tolerate them! Justice supposed to be blind to everything but the facts, not what they wish, feel, it's according to our constitution. Improve education, bring God back into all aspects of American life and our judges will be different, society will be different!
Replies
FRom A Friend;
A serious, principled case against automatic birthright citizenship for children of individuals in the country unlawfully must begin with the Constitution itself, not slogans, but structure, intent, and consistent legal interpretation.
The key phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment is not simply “born in the United States,” but “born… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That second clause is not decorative; it is a limiting principle. The central question is what “jurisdiction” meant to those who drafted and ratified the amendment in 1868.
At that time, “jurisdiction” was widely understood to mean full political allegiance, not merely being subject to laws in a general sense, but owing complete and undivided loyalty to the United States. This is why well-recognized exceptions existed even then: children of foreign diplomats, occupying enemy forces, and certain sovereign tribal affiliations were excluded because they were not fully subject to U.S. political authority.
The modern expansion of birthright citizenship rests on the assumption that anyone physically present, regardless of legal status, is automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” in the constitutional sense. That interpretation effectively reads the limiting clause out of the amendment.
A more textually faithful interpretation recognizes that individuals who are in the country in violation of its laws have not been admitted into the political community and therefore cannot unilaterally confer citizenship through their presence. Citizenship, in this view, is not an incidental byproduct of geography but a legal and political status tied to allegiance and lawful incorporation into the nation.
This reasoning aligns with the broader interpretive approach often associated with Antonin Scalia, that general legal principles must be applied consistently to new circumstances without abandoning their original meaning. The principle underlying the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure citizenship for those fully under U.S. sovereignty, particularly formerly enslaved persons, not to create an open-ended rule detached from lawful presence or allegiance.
Moreover, the fairness argument carries real weight. Legal immigrants often spend years navigating a complex, costly process to obtain citizenship. Granting automatic citizenship to the children of those who have bypassed that process raises legitimate concerns about equal treatment under the law. A system perceived as inconsistent or easily circumvented risks undermining respect for legal immigration itself.
There are also policy implications. A rule that guarantees citizenship regardless of parental status can act as a pull factor, incentivizing unlawful entry. While humanitarian concerns must always be part of the discussion, immigration policy must also consider long-term impacts on national cohesion, resource allocation, and the integrity of the legal system.
Even John Roberts has emphasized in various contexts the importance of not stretching narrow historical exceptions into sweeping new doctrines without clear constitutional grounding. The question is not whether hard cases exist, but whether the Constitution compels the broad rule currently applied.
None of this diminishes the humanity or dignity of those involved. Children are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth. But constitutional interpretation and public policy must be guided by coherent principles, not solely by sympathetic outcomes.
In sum, a strong case against automatic birthright citizenship for children of those unlawfully present rests on three pillars:
This is not a rejection of immigration—it is an argument for restoring clarity, fairness, and constitutional fidelity to how citizenship is granted.
President Trump went to the Supreme Court yesterday in another first for a US President. His presence makes the activist judges on the bench realize that this issue needs to be settled one way only, the way the President of the United States enforces the law. Period. I don't think they'll dare to defy him.
He always has McCarren-Walter Immigration Act, that gives him authority to keep out any group from any country for any reason for as long as he wants. Congress ceded part of their authority to POTUS in case of time like these times, when we are being overtaken by migrants/aliens.
The problem with birthright is mainly the ones who come here to give birth, then take the child back to a country to raise them as the enemy with the right to vote! This is the most dangerous part of birthright! Trump would have to shut down all travel to all countries not knowing who is going to use it in this manner, or for all foreign pregnant women. Don't we find it curious that very pregnant women chose to travel in the last stage of pregnancy to a country stupid enough to give citizenship to babies who's mothers are not citizens nor do they live in the USA?
This idiotic Supreme Court is going to f this up!
Ilona, I expect the same as you do. And it is yet another reason why President Trump needs to do something about the judiciary that keeps getting in the way of his agenda. In my mind there is only one way to remedy the situation: President Trump needs to assume full and direct authority over the judiciary, clean it up, put judges on the bench that are loyal to him and support his agents. What other options do you see?
He doesn't have the authority Paul! There's a reason for the three branches, no one should have full authority. The answer is a well informed voting public....not a dictator! You love the man so much yet you are willing see him become a dictator! That's where great education comes in!
The voting public doesn't have much say when it comes to judges, especially at higher level courts. If we want to make sure the voting public only votes for people who appoint good judges, we will have to get rid of the demonrat party and have a one party system. Otherwise you'll always have anti-American demonrats appoint activist judges. I know you don't like that option, either. So, what cash realistically be done?
We could have a say with the justices if we had a states called Article-V amendment proposal convention and createdm an amendmenmt thjat allowed the American citizens to overrule any government bnureau or agency along with courts by a 3/4 vote to overrule a specific regulation rule or law.
The Tradesman, that's a huge long shot and not a realist option. Article V invoked by 34 states, 3/4 of the vote,...not likely to happen.
We elect every single judge who then will rule over us if we should get into that position! That is important! It all begins there!
You can push you narrative of one party all you want, it's against everything in our constitution. The founders could have made George Washington a king.......but they didn't!
Yes, we will have crazy leftist judges as long as we tolerate them! Justice supposed to be blind to everything but the facts, not what they wish, feel, it's according to our constitution. Improve education, bring God back into all aspects of American life and our judges will be different, society will be different!
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next