14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states:
"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."
This clause provides birthright citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, as long as they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): The INA does not alter the 14th Amendment's provision of birthright citizenship but governs immigration and naturalization processes.
Passed by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later, on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including formerly enslaved people, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,”
This Amendment was very important at the time and even more so now. This issue of equal protection under the law should have been argued for in favor of the Jan 6 "prisoners" but instead were used to protect the Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The socialist opposition to the US Constitution is alwsay adept at twisting the words and intents of or ruling documents and non more so that this amendment.
For one of the few times in their assault on America, the countries other aisle is hoping to keep, not with the strict intent, but the strict wording of the Amendment thereby allowing them to have hosts of illegal immigrants gain a foothold in the country through the use of the "birthright" or "bor in country" status of these infants, brought through the backstreets and alleys of human trafficking only to be used as an anchor to allow the "parents" to jump the line against legal immigrants.
Below is a historic example. 1. is how it may have been in the age of the writing of the Amendment (the use of ships and long distance journey to come to the US followed by a quarantine period and documentation then onto terra Americanus and citizenry.
The illegal alien way. pretty much somes it up. Get that pregnant woman across the border (usually within the month that the child should be born) Get it delivered efore you can get caught and deported and voila! An american baby anchor. RInse and repreat.
WITH STRICT INTERPRETATION (NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRESENT DAY MOTIVATIONS
Scenario 1: Child Born During or Upon Arrival at a Legal Immigrant Intake Center
If the ship arrives at a U.S. port or legal immigrant intake center (e.g., historically Ellis Island) and the child is born on U.S. soil, including waters under U.S. jurisdiction, the child is considered a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
Legal status or the pending immigration status of the mother does not impact the child’s citizenship.
If the child is born outside U.S. territorial jurisdiction (e.g., in international waters), the rules of the child’s nationality depend on the country’s jurisdiction and parentage.
Key Note:
Children born at legal immigrant intake centers like Ellis Island were considered to be on U.S. soil, provided the center is within U.S. territorial boundaries.
Scenario 2: Child Born to a Woman Who Illegally Crosses the Border
If the child is born on U.S. soil—even if the mother entered unlawfully—the child is still a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
The mother’s method of entry into the United States (legal or illegal) does not affect the child’s citizenship status, as the 14th Amendment does not differentiate based on the legality of the parent's presence.
Key Note:
The child would be entitled to the full rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship.
However, the mother's unlawful presence in the United States remains a separate issue and does not confer any legal status to her. She would still be subject to immigration enforcement and removal.
Legal Notes and Case Precedents
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
The Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the United States to foreign nationals (even those who are not citizens) is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.
This case affirmed the principle of jus soli (right of the soil).
Plyler v. Doe (1982):
The Supreme Court ruled that undocumented immigrants are considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the 14th Amendment, reinforcing birthright citizenship.
INS vs. Rios-Pineda (1985):
Reinforced that the 14th Amendment applies broadly to children born on U.S. soil.
Summary
In both scenarios, the child born on U.S. soil would acquire U.S. citizenship by birth under the 14th Amendment, regardless of the mother's immigration status or circumstances of entry. The mother’s legal status, while important for her own immigration case, does not affect the child’s citizenship.
THE POSSIBLE TRUMPIAN VIEW.
Scenario 1: Child Born on a Ship Arriving at a Legal Immigrant Intake Center
From a conservative standpoint:
This scenario represents a historical example of lawful immigration. Legal immigrants arriving through ports like Ellis Island were following a formal process to gain entry into the United States.
A child born under these circumstances would be seen as deserving of U.S. citizenship because their parents demonstrated respect for the country’s laws by seeking to enter through legal channels.
The situation aligns with conservative values of law, order, and structured immigration.
Scenario 2: Child Born to a Woman Who Illegally Crosses the Border
From a conservative standpoint:
This scenario raises significant concerns about the unintended consequences of granting citizenship to children born to individuals who violate U.S. immigration laws.
Conservatives might argue that granting citizenship in such cases creates a moral hazard, encouraging further illegal immigration and undermining the rule of law.
They may contend that the "jurisdiction" clause in the 14th Amendment was not intended to apply to individuals who deliberately violate U.S. laws, and reforms should restrict birthright citizenship to exclude children of illegal immigrants.
Key Conservative Arguments
Reform of Birthright Citizenship: Many conservatives advocate for legislation or constitutional interpretation to restrict birthright citizenship to children born to U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. This aligns with their emphasis on law-abiding behavior and national security.
Respect for Sovereignty: The principle of enforcing border laws is central to conservative ideology. Granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is seen as undermining sovereignty and rewarding unlawful actions.
Impact on Public Resources: Conservatives often highlight the strain on public services, such as healthcare and education, caused by the children of illegal immigrants. They view unrestricted birthright citizenship as exacerbating these challenges.
Support for Judicial Originalism: A strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment is central to the conservative position. They argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes individuals who do not have allegiance to the U.S., such as those unlawfully present.
Summary from a Conservative Perspective
In Scenario 1, conservatives would likely support the child’s citizenship, as the mother was attempting to follow the lawful immigration process. However, in Scenario 2, they would argue that granting citizenship to children born to individuals who entered illegally undermines the rule of law, incentivizes further illegal immigration, and goes beyond the original intent of the 14th Amendment. Many conservatives advocate for limiting birthright citizenship to align with their broader goals of preserving sovereignty, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring that U.S. citizenship is granted in a way that respects the country’s legal framework.
There is no way that this is a "snap" judgement by any judicial group, more especially NOT that of the Supreme Court. Don't expect anyone to do a straight run at the 14 Amendment BUT look to see if the equal protection issue is brought up seperately. As well as the additional rights that are mentioned in the section.
