For a long time, the American legal and political landscape has been distorted by the fundamental misconceptions of the 14th revision. It means being born in American soil and becoming a citizen. This misconception is inconsistent with the original intent of the correction framer. Furthermore, it undermines the fundamental principle that citizenship arises from loyalty, not by geographical coincidence.
On May 15, the Supreme Court will take three cases and merge them under the name Trump vs. Casa. It will tackle Donald Trump's bold and necessary attempt to end the unconstitutional practice of giving citizenship to those born in American soil, regardless of parental loyalty. The fact that the court chose to hear these cases in May – the rare occurrences that are usually reserved for the biggest urgency issue highlight how important this issue is. The interests will not be high. What is at stake is the fundamental principle that citizenship is rooted in loyalty, not merely geography. This is the principle that the Constitution explicitly supports and that decades of judicial misconception is at risk.
President Donald Trump's executive order is at the heart of the incident, telling a critical moment in the fight to restore constitutional integrity. However, the lawsuit rekindled the debate over whether birthright citizenship is truly required by the 14th Amendment. A thorough investigation of the constitution, its framer's intentions, and related historical precedents reveal that birthright citizenship is not constitutionally mandated or is not consistent with American law and government principles.
The heart of the problem: jurisdiction and loyalty
The main discussion of birthright citizenship depends on the citizenship clause of Article 14.
Every person born or naturalized in the United States is subject to that jurisdiction and is a citizen of the United States and the state in which they live.
Advocates of birthright citizenship often quarantine the phrase “born or naturalized in the United States.” This latter phrase is not merely a surplus. It has substantial legal meaning rooted in loyalty, not mere beings.
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who introduced the citizenship clause in 1866, explicitly stated his intention.
This does not include, of course, anyone born in the US, alien, or an ambassador's family, or a foreign minister (or) born, certified by the US government, but does not include including people from all other classes.
Senator Howard's remarks make it clear that if individual loyalty is in foreign power, a mere accident of birth within US borders does not automatically grant citizenship. How can a person be both a citizen and an alien if mere birthplace was the sole determinant of citizenship?
Historical and Legal Foundations
The principle that loyalty determines citizenship rather than mere nativity precedes the 14th amendment. American legal traditions, heavily influenced by the principles of English customary and natural law, are rooted in citizenship that is consistently rooted in the voluntary loyalty of individuals (or parents, in the case of minors).
Swiss jurist Emmerich de Wattel had a major influence on his father, who is a dissertation of the laws of the state, defining citizenship as follows:
Naturally born citizens are people born in the country and parents who are citizens. Society cannot exist and perpetuates itself to those of the citizens' children, so that they naturally follow the father's condition and succeed all their rights.
The definition of Vattel emphasizes that citizenship is inherited from parents and is not determined by birthplace. Society continuity depends on the transmission of loyalty from citizen parents to offspring. This principle was fundamental to understanding citizenship when drafting the constitution.
In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas and consider this. That's right – the very man who shapes our republic was not just familiar with Batelle's work. They were soaked in it. They relied on his wisdom to guide basic decisions on citizenship and many other basic constitutional concepts.
Judicial Misunderstanding: Won Kim Ark and its Limitations
One of the most frequently cited cases in favour of birthright citizenship is the United States vs. Won Kim Ark (1898). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a child born in the United States from a Chinese parent who was a legal permanent resident was a citizen. However, essential to this decision was the legal and permanent resident status of Wong Kim Ark's parents, clearly distinguishing it from cases involving illegal immigrants or temporary visitors' children.
Importantly, Wong Kim Ark's ruling failed to grant citizenship to the children of people who existed illegally. The court's reasoning rested on the premise that parents were subject to US jurisdiction in the full sense of the term. This means legitimate existence and compliance with US law.
Conception of modern interpretation
Supporters of birthright citizenship are often Pryler v. It refers to Doe's (1982) dicta, and the court discussed the undocumented rights to public education for immigrant children. However, this dictator suggests comparableness to a legitimate and illegal existence under the Fourteenth Amendment, lacks binding authority and cannot serve as a constitutional justification for birthright citizenship.
The amendment framers were intended to secure the rights of freed slaves, rather than indiscriminately granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Asserted that John Bingham, the leading architect of the 14th Amendment, declared,
Every human being born in the United States of America with parents who have no loyalty to foreign sovereignty…is a natural citizen.
The language is clear. Not where you live, but loyalty is the linchpin of citizenship.
The consequences of misunderstanding
Misuse of the 14th Amendment to justify birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and undermines the principle of consent of the ruler. If citizenship is merely a consequence of place, the social and legal ties essential to American politics are dissolved.
This distortion of the 14th Amendment not only erodes the sovereignty of the state, but also underestimates the legislative power that regulates immigration. It effectively overrides the Congressional power over immigration policy by allowing those who violate immigration law to grant citizenship to their descendants.
Constitutional sanity restoration
President Trump's executive order represents a bold effort to correct this historic misconception. By restoring the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, the order reaffirms that citizenship is not a reward for illegal beings, but a privilege of those in the United States.
Critics will undoubtedly argue that the executive order violates constitutional rights. Such claims are rooted in modern judicial orthodox thwarting the intention of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court should seize the opportunity to clarify that birthright citizenship is a constitutional abnormality and not a guaranteed right, as is currently practiced.
Conclusion: Loyalty as a cornerstone
Reducing citizenship to birth accidents is to dismantle the essence of the American social contract. A well-understood constitution does not tolerate the indiscriminate awarding of citizenship based merely on geography. Rather, citizenship is a legal and social bond, fundamentally rooted in loyalty and voluntary relationships with the American state.
To maintain the integrity of citizenship and maintain American sovereignty, it is essential to reject the false doctrine of birthright citizenship. President Trump's executive order marks the beginning of this necessary restoration of the constitutional order. Americans must be determined by defending the principles of loyalty as the basis for the rule of law and citizenship.
