As I See It
Birthright Citizenship
Birthright Citizenship. If you’re born on U.S. soil, congratulations — you’re a U.S. citizen.
The 14th Amendment was a direct response to reject the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision. The Court ruled that a person born into slavery couldn’t be a citizen because his mother was a slave. The court also ruled that enslaved people and their descendants could never be U.S. citizens.
The 14th Amendment erased this injustice: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen, regardless of your family’s background or your parent’s status.
But let’s be clear, a child’s citizenship doesn’t “magically” extend to their parents. If parents are here illegally, they’re not entitled to citizenship.
We have laws for a reason and breaking them has consequences, including deportation.
If deportation separates families, that’s on the parent, who chose to break the law — not the United States for enforcing it.
Respect for the rule of law is what keeps our society functional, fair and free.
— As I see it, I’m Andy Parrish
Trane Joe
January 24, 2025 at 9:52 am
Here’s the rub, Andrew. Parents are custodians of their children until they become adults. Therefore, the children are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their parents. Children of noncitizens, who are subject to a different jurisdiction than the United States, do not qualify for birthright citizenship.
Andy Parrish
January 24, 2025 at 11:14 am
I went back and forth on this for the very reason, is an illegal immigrant actually the ‘Subject to the jurisdiction therefore’ meaning subjected to our laws and guaranteed constitutional protection. The only case law I could find was United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Courts ruled while his parents were not citizens, he was. The courts also determined that “subject to the jurisdiction therefor” that Foreign Diplomats, Native Americans, and Enemy Combatants, were not subjects of US law.
I think the argument that will be made — and why Trump declared a national emergency at the boarder and labeled cartels as “terrorist organizations” is to give two reasons that they (babies) fall under Enemy Combatants.
Additional arguments can be made that in 1868 the concept of “anchor babies” was not possibly foreseen, and that we need the courts interpretation again.
Heidi Kerska
January 25, 2025 at 8:11 am
Well said Andy. A laws a law.
nick
January 25, 2025 at 8:32 am
The cartels should have been named terrorist organizations a long time ago. The illegal immigrants coming into our country and having children is a very different problem. I understand the frustration. The parents are not legal and do not want to for fear of deportation. It is inhumane to separate families so the big conundrum of how to proceed. I have no solution but do want to point out one glaring problem. Every time a newscaster presents this it is pointed out that Trump’ s order is unconstitutional; they are not lying it is unconstitutional.
Biden kept on trying to forgive student debt which is unconstitutional and that was not brought up even though Biden himself thought it was.
The biggest problem is that Congress has yielded too much authority to the Presidential office. Both Democratic and Republican presidents are abusing it to the detriment of the separation of powers and the American public.
Ultimately, we are at fault for not taking our role as voters and citizens seriously enough.
walden
January 28, 2025 at 7:14 pm
The existing Supreme Court interpretation of 14A is ripe for challenge. One factor that has changed since prior court review is that granting citizenship for the family of the anchor baby brings with it the full panapoly of government benefits. This in turn creates a magnet drawing even more illegals to come and play this incidious game of ransacking the U.S. Treasury on an enormous scale. This situation has no resemblance to the intended 14A goal of granting citizenship to slaves 160 years ago.
The Trump administration welcomes the Supreme Court challenge that will follow. That’s how progess is marked in our republic.