The Right Coast

Editor: Thomas A. Smith
University of San Diego
School of Law

Sunday, November 4, 2018

Donald Trump & Birthright Citizenship -- President's Executive Order Can End It Properly | National Review

Simply put, the president does have the ability through executive action to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the citizenship clause, and to direct those agencies to issue passports, Social Security numbers, etc., only to those individuals whose status as citizens meet the requirements of the law. This is especially true here where, contrary to Andy’s speculation, Congress actually did not clarify that its later statutory provision was somehow inconsistent with the original understanding of the Amendment.

Congress codified the citizenship clause in Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 301 of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)) simply repeats a portion of the language of the 14th Amendment, stating that an individual shall be a citizen of the U.S. if he is “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As Andy correctly says, the term “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. was understood at the time this Reconstruction era amendment was adopted “to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign.”

via www.nationalreview.com

https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2018/11/donald-trump-birthright-citizenship-presidents-executive-order-can-end-it-properly-national-review.html

| Permalink

Comments

This whole birthright thing (constitutional / statutory / executive order) is an excellent workshop (laboratory, playground) for thinking through the ways and by-ways of originalism (intent vs meaning, when it is legit to look at which historical materials, etc.).

Posted by: CR | Nov 4, 2018 8:39:40 AM

Don't forget Chevron. It cuts both ways, folks.

Posted by: Paul Mapes | Nov 4, 2018 12:39:19 PM

'the term “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. was understood at the time this Reconstruction era amendment was adopted “to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign.”'

Oh balls. Then they should have said so.

If congressional speeches were necessary to explain the preferred meaning of the phrase, then it follows that the said meaning was not unambiguously and universally accepted. Therefore that meaning should have been explicitly included in the amendment. It wasn't. End of.

Posted by: dearieme | Nov 5, 2018 2:31:51 AM

Post a comment