# Trump trying to end birthright citizenship **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 30, 2018, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712 "2018-10-30T11:47:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/81 "2018-10-30T22:02:09Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’ll admit I haven’t thought this through entirely, but it does seem to me that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause wasn’t written with immigrants in mind; from reading about your situation, from I was led to this [Wall Street Journal legal scholar](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203731004576045380685742092?ns=prod/accounts-wsj&ns=prod/accounts-wsj) opinion, which assuming he is correct in his citations shows that the supposition is wrong > [@](#): > > During congressional debates, both proponents and opponents of the citizenship clause agreed with this interpretation of the 14th Amendment. For example, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan opposed the clause precisely because it would extend birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of Chinese laborers and other noncitizens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none.” > > Tellingly, Cowan’s racially charged opposition was met with the following response from California Sen. John Conness: “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/82 "2018-10-30T22:13:26Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I always thought the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude children of diplomats, who have some immunity from local laws (for example, they get to ignore parking tickets). > > Everyone with multiple brain cells (obviously excluding Donald) knows that the intent was to grant citizenship by birth. Donald says we’re the only country in the world that does this, he’s obviously lying. I’m not so sure, given that in the decision I cited, residency was the justification. If there’s no residency, if it’s just a visitor, then it may not apply. The decision also said that employees of foreign companies only here to represent their country’s interests are also treated as not subject to our jurisdiction for the purposes of birthright citizenship. So say, a Japanese manager sent to a Toyota factory in Tennessee, his kids are not automatically citizens if they are born here while he’s on that assignment. I mean, right now they are, but that doesn’t seem to be something the US HAS to grant under the 14th amendment. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/83 "2018-10-30T22:25:21Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. > > I’m kind of uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship is something you can luck into like that- most European countries, for example, require that you be the child of a citizen to be a citizen. > > Citizenship is something valuable- it’s not something we give away to anyone who shows up, except in this one case. That’s why I said “tighten up” the idea of birthright citizenship, not abolish it. Like for example, maybe restrict it to citizens and green card holders or applicants (petitioners?). Why? So you aren’t uncomfortable? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/84 "2018-10-30T22:45:37Z")
Or, ,allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but stipulate that this does the illegal immigrant parents no good and confers no benefits. Kids have to be with their parents, and their parents have to go back to their home country. Their kids can come back when they turn 18, and cannot apply to sponsor their parents unless the parents were here legally. No question that passes constitutional muster. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/85 "2018-10-30T22:59:11Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > Where would you deport a person, an adult, who was born here, grew up here, had never left this country, and is suddenly revealed to be a non-citizen? To his parents’ country of origin? And would their parents’ countries of origin even let them off the plane? The US is not the arbiter of other countries’ citizenship processes. Just because America thinks the baby should be, say, Ecuadorian, doesn’t mean Ecuador is obligated to agree and take in this person who is, functionally, an alien. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/86 "2018-10-30T23:00:48Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. > > I’m kind of uncomfortable with the idea that citizenship is something you can luck into like that- Whoa! :eek: You _chose_ your parents? :dubious: > [@bump](#): > > Citizenship is something valuable- it’s not something we give away to anyone who shows up, except in this one case. And what did you do to earn _your_ citizenship? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/87 "2018-10-30T23:10:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Or, ,allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but stipulate that this does the illegal immigrant parents no good and confers no benefits. Kids have to be with their parents, and their parents have to go back to their home country. Their kids can come back when they turn 18, and cannot apply to sponsor their parents unless the parents were here legally. No question that passes constitutional muster. And if they have relatives in the U.S.? They must be expelled regardless? This is a hilarious proposal in the age of stripping kids from their refugee, asylum-seeking parents. And by hilarious I mean it makes want to puke. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/88 "2018-10-30T23:15:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Or, ,allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but stipulate that this does the illegal immigrant parents no good and confers no benefits. Kids have to be with their parents, and their parents have to go back to their home country. Their kids can come back when they turn 18, and cannot apply to sponsor their parents unless the parents were here legally. No question that passes constitutional muster. I doubt that would pass constitutional muster. If the kids are citizens, they can stay with relatives or sponsors. There is nothing in the constitution that says children have to stay with parents. I have no problem, in theory, of taking another look at citizenship and what makes sense in the 21st century. But we do that through Congress, and abiding by the Constitution. I doubt I would want to make a change, but maybe some tweaking if there is a convincing argument to be made by someone. Otherwise it looks like a solution in search of a problem, and although we have some problems with our immigration system, I don’t think citizenship is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/89 "2018-10-30T23:24:00Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > And if they have relatives in the U.S.? They must be expelled regardless? > > This is a hilarious proposal in the age of stripping kids from their refugee, asylum-seeking parents. And by hilarious I mean it makes want to puke. If they have relatives willing to take them in, fine. But as a general rule, I think we could all agree that no one should get a legal benefit from an illegal act. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/90 "2018-10-30T23:25:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I doubt that would pass constitutional muster. If the kids are citizens, they can stay with relatives or sponsors. There is nothing in the constitution that says children have to stay with parents. > > I have no problem, in theory, of taking another look at citizenship and what makes sense in the 21st century. But we do that through Congress, and abiding by the Constitution. I doubt I would want to make a change, but maybe some tweaking if there is a convincing argument to be made by someone. Otherwise it looks like a solution in search of a problem, and although we have some problems with our immigration system, I don’t think citizenship is one of them. As I said before, sure, if there are relatives willing to take them in and the parents don’t want to take the kids home with them. See: Elian Gonzalez precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/91 "2018-10-30T23:37:14Z")
Having a baby is an illegal act? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/92 "2018-10-30T23:43:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not so sure, given that in the decision I cited, residency was the justification. If there’s no residency, if it’s just a visitor, then it may not apply. The decision also said that employees of foreign companies only here to represent their country’s interests are also treated as not subject to our jurisdiction for the purposes of birthright citizenship. So say, a Japanese manager sent to a Toyota factory in Tennessee, his kids are not automatically citizens if they are born here while he’s on that assignment. I mean, right now they are, but that doesn’t seem to be something the US HAS to grant under the 14th amendment. > [@adaher](#): > > Or, ,allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but stipulate that this does the illegal immigrant parents no good and confers no benefits. Kids have to be with their parents, and their parents have to go back to their home country. Their kids can come back when they turn 18, and cannot apply to sponsor their parents unless the parents were here legally. No question that passes constitutional muster. > [@adaher](#): > > If they have relatives willing to take them in, fine. But as a general rule, I think we could all agree that no one should get a legal benefit from an illegal act. > [@adaher](#): > > As I said before, sure, if there are relatives willing to take them in and the parents don’t want to take the kids home with them. See: Elian Gonzalez precedent. These are all things that could and maybe even should be. But the text of the Constitution is “born in the United States” not “born to a female resident of the United States with no prospects or relatives in a foreign country”. You’re just distracting away from the actual text with wishful desires. As said, if you want to take a textual approach, then tough titties. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2018, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/93 "2018-10-30T23:46:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If they have relatives willing to take them in, fine. But as a general rule, I think we could all agree that no one should get a legal benefit from an illegal act. What illegal act did the child commit? ---
**Author:** ![Arcite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/67e7ee/32.png) [@Arcite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arcite)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/94 "2018-10-31T00:22:33Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I always thought the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to exclude children of diplomats, who have some immunity from local laws (for example, they get to ignore parking tickets). > > Everyone with multiple brain cells (obviously excluding Donald) knows that the intent was to grant citizenship by birth. Donald says we’re the only country in the world that does this, he’s obviously lying. Actually, the Supreme Court has [stated](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/#tab-opinion-1967657): > [@](#): > > That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/95 "2018-10-31T00:23:24Z")
Trump is the master of flashing shiny coins to change the subject while throwing out red meat at the same time. At a point when Trump’s rhetoric and normalization of white nationalism has emboldened crazies to send pipe bombs to those Hannity has identified as evil, when we’ve had someone kill eleven people in a temple both well, because they are of a Jewish race (religion has nothing to do with this sort of hate, it is a perceived “race”) and a Jewish organization supports refugee settlement program, Trump _distracts_ with this crap appealing to the immigrant phobia and hate of his base at the same time. And we play along. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/96 "2018-10-31T00:26:57Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/97 "2018-10-31T00:40:16Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I was just trying to point out that birthright citizenship can basically be an accident of birth. It _always_ is exactly this, for _everyone_. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/98 "2018-10-31T00:48:13Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > “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.” > > If we’re meant to read the “and” as an “or”, then I would say that the text is quite clear: > > If you were born in the US or anywhere that the US has legal control, then you’re a citizen. > > If it is in fact meant to be read as an “and”, then the whole subclause makes no sense since it’s redundant with the “in the United States”. Everywhere inside the United States is, by definition, under the jurisdiction of the United States. While a technically accurate reading of the text, it’s clearly not what the text is meant to say, since that’s just stupid. It would be like me saying that “any hair on Sage Rat or on the person thereof”…what possible reason would there be to include the extra, 100% redundant flourish? > > I believe that the text is just abbreviated and it’s meant to be read as: > > “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and [those territories] subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” > > It is, after all, the case that at the time the US did have outlying territories under its jurisdiction, and (as noted) it would make no sense for the subclause to exist if not to deal with them: > > [Guano Islands Act - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act) > > Can you think of any explanation for the existence of the subclause that wouldn’t necessitate the existence of areas under US jurisdiction that are not part of the US? I take this back. Apparently it is meant to be an “and”, is not abbreviated text, and was included to exclude people who are consulate staff, etc. You must be born in the US, excluding people in the US who have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the US by being a consular officer, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/99 "2018-10-31T03:50:00Z")
[Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Stunt Panders to Zealots Like Alleged Pittsburgh Shooter Robert Bowers](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-birthright-citizenship-stunt-panders-to-zealots-like-alleged-pittsburgh-shooter-robert-bowers) > [@](#): > > Like the lies about the “migrant caravan” (and even the term itself), and like sending troops to the border to protect us against a non-invasion that is not going to happen, the birthright citizenship issue is another example of Trump playing with fire on the question of immigration to fire up his base. Rather than tone down the rhetoric, Trump amps it up. Please stop discussing this like it’s a policy proposal. It’s a stunt to get out the anti-immigrant vote. Like I posted earlier… This is Trump specifically trying to appeal to voters like Robert Bowers. It’s pretty disgusting ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712/100 "2018-10-31T04:16:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > He can’t end birthright citizenship. Period. That being said, the COURTS can, by interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction of” differently than current understanding, which is an issue that I believe has not been taken up by the courts. > > I COULD see SCOTUS maybe narrowing that clause a little, but I can’t see them ending birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants. I could see them taking it away from children of visitors though, since they are “subject to a foreign power”. But I think even that is unlikely. Think about what the bigots are saying about “subject to the jurisdiction of”. They apply it to the parent, and then assert that the child cannot be a citizen because the parent was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s nonsense because the child is the one being born and also both the child and the parent, regardless of the parent’s immigration/citizenship status are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-trying-to-end-birthright-citizenship/823712.md?page=6)