The 14th Amendment & Birthright Citizenship

[OlDawg]

Interesting reads.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Thoughts?

[tvc184]

I think the there is obviously a case for no birthright citizenship, especially considering the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins.

Even though John Elk was born in US territory on an Indian reservation, in a 7-2 ruling the Supreme Court said that Elk was not a US citizen. This was because he was born on the reservation and due to treaties, was subject to tribal law, not that of the US.

It took an act of Congress in 1924 under their authority in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and citizenship, to declare that any Native American was a citizen at birth even though they were subject to tribal law. So after WWI and only 100 years ago, Indians born on a reservation were not Americans at birth.

I think however the Supreme Court is about 98% likely to rule in favor of birthright citizenship, more from tradition than fact, much like in Obergefell where on a 5-4 vote they supported same sex marriages. 

[OlDawg]

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

*Copied from the second link in OP thread above.

 

SCOTUS got this wrong according to the author of the Amendment. IMHO, a fix would be to clarify ‘anyone born here to parent/parents with legal standing to be in the United States or its provinces or territories’. This would follow the author of the Amendment’s original intent that was voted on, and would be a compromise that works in the best interest of the public.

While it wouldn’t stop rich people from having ‘birthing vacations’ in the U.S., it would stop anchor babies & many issues with immigration & family separation. Those who are wealthy becoming citizens aren’t a drain on the public till, and the number is very small. They could also claim dual citizenship if desired. Those who are already considered citizens would remain as such.

Personally, I think SCOTUS may uphold the injunctions temporarily, but  request the issue be developed deeper for a more thorough review before a final ruling.

This issue needs to be addressed.

@tvc184

[Big girl]

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I think the there is obviously a case for no birthright citizenship, especially considering the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins.

Even though John Elk was born in US territory on an Indian reservation, in a 7-2 ruling the Supreme Court said that Elk was not a US citizen. This was because he was born on the reservation and due to treaties, was subject to tribal law, not that of the US.

It took an act of Congress in 1924 under their authority in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and citizenship, to declare that any Native American was a citizen at birth even though they were subject to tribal law. So after WWI and only 100 years ago, Indians born on a reservation were not Americans at birth.

I think however the Supreme Court is about 98% likely to rule in favor of birthright citizenship, more from tradition than fact, much like in Obergefell where on a 5-4 vote they supported same sex marriages. 

What makes you a citizen? 

[OlDawg]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

14 hours ago, Big girl said:

What makes you a citizen? 

The Constitution. 

[5GallonBucket]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The Constitution. 

She probably won’t like that answer

[Reagan]

23 hours ago, Big girl said:

What makes you a citizen? 

It appears you may have your own idea what a citizen is.  Can you let us know what that is?

[Big girl]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The Constitution. 

The fact that you were born here. If they get rid of birthright citizenship how will we know who are citizens?

[OlDawg]

33 minutes ago, Big girl said:

The fact that you were born here. If they get rid of birthright citizenship how will we know who are citizens?

How do you know now? Profile much?

You must live in a very small world. My daughter-in-law is a naturalized citizen from Costa Rica. She’s as much a citizen as you or me. She even served in the U.S. Navy. Probably has given more of herself to this country than you. She happens to be very proud to be an American.

If you read any of the articles I linked to, you’d have a lot better idea of what’s going on.

But hey…carry on…

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, OlDawg said:

How do you know now? Profile much?

You must live in a very small world. My daughter-in-law is a naturalized citizen from Costa Rica. She’s as much a citizen as you or me. She even served in the U.S. Navy. Probably has given more of herself to this country than you. She happens to be very proud to be an American.

If you read any of the articles I linked to, you’d have a lot better idea of what’s going on.

But hey…carry on…

I agree that she is a citizen as well. Birthright citizenship is not going anywhere.

[baddog]

Key points about naturalized citizens: 

• Requirements:

  Requirements include continuous residence in the U.S., knowledge of English and U.S. civics, and demonstrating good moral character. 

   

• Same Rights:

  Naturalized citizens have the same rights and responsibilities as those born in the U.S.

   

• Oath of Allegiance:

  A crucial step in the naturalization process is taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and its laws. 

   

• Certificate of Naturalization:

  Upon successful completion of the process, a naturalized citizen receives a Certificate of Naturalization. 

• Voluntary Process:

  Naturalization is a voluntary process for non-U.S. born individuals to gain citizenship. 

   
• Eligibility:

  Generally, to become a naturalized citizen, an individual must be at least 18 years old, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for a specified number of years (3 or 5, depending on circumstances), and meet other requirements. 

   

[OlDawg]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

I agree that she is a citizen as well. Birthright citizenship is not going anywhere.

The U.S. already has a limited birthright citizenship scenario—even though many claim it’s much more open than the original authors & Congressional approval intended.

The question up for debate—which has never actually been adjudicated—is whether a child born to someone in the U.S. temporarily & illegally should automatically become a citizen.

No one is attempting to end birthright citizenship altogether.

[OlDawg]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

 

Key points about naturalized citizens: 

• Requirements:

  Requirements include continuous residence in the U.S., knowledge of English and U.S. civics, and demonstrating good moral character. 

   

• Same Rights:

  Naturalized citizens have the same rights and responsibilities as those born in the U.S.

   

• Oath of Allegiance:

  A crucial step in the naturalization process is taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and its laws. 

   

• Certificate of Naturalization:

  Upon successful completion of the process, a naturalized citizen receives a Certificate of Naturalization. 

• Voluntary Process:

  Naturalization is a voluntary process for non-U.S. born individuals to gain citizenship. 

   
• Eligibility:

  Generally, to become a naturalized citizen, an individual must be at least 18 years old, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for a specified number of years (3 or 5, depending on circumstances), and meet other requirements. 

   

Pretty good summary in general. There are other scenarios that involve military service as well.

My family would be a great quiz for citizenship questions. My DIL—as mentioned—is naturalized, and one of my grandchildren was born in Japan. Can my DIL and/or grandchild have dual citizenship?

(I obviously know the answer. But, it’s an interesting situation for folks to think about that haven’t ever pondered.)

The answer is ‘yes.’ My DIL can have dual citizenship because Costa Rica allows & the U.S. doesn’t make you renounce. My grandson can’t be Japanese and American. Partly because he was born in the Naval hospital in Japan (technically U.S. soil), and also because Japan provides citizenship via parental ancestry instead of location.

The U.S. is one of only 35 countries in the world (out of 195) that still grants almost universal birthright citizenship based on geographical location. And, as some believe with a pretty strong argument IMHO, that is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

If—as some believe, and has been practiced since a very liberal interpretation decades ago—everyone born in the U.S. geographically was automatically a citizen, there would never have been a need for a separate, later Act to include Native Americans as citizens. This is a very strong argument for original intent.

I’m not sure the case coming before SCOTUS this week is as cut & dried as some would believe.

It will be very interesting to watch, and could have a profound impact on how well we can enforce our borders. I would think SCOTUS will have this in the back of their mind. Of course, POTUS hasn’t enamored himself with the Judicial Branch lately with his mouth and some of his actions, and people are people, so you never know.

[baddog]

56 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Pretty good summary in general. There are other scenarios that involve military service as well.

My family would be a great quiz for citizenship questions. My DIL—as mentioned—is naturalized, and one of my grandchildren was born in Japan. Can my DIL and/or grandchild have dual citizenship?

(I obviously know the answer. But, it’s an interesting situation for folks to think about that haven’t ever pondered.)

The answer is ‘yes.’ My DIL can have dual citizenship because Costa Rica allows & the U.S. doesn’t make you renounce. My grandson can’t be Japanese and American. Partly because he was born in the Naval hospital in Japan (technically U.S. soil), and also because Japan provides citizenship via parental ancestry instead of location.

The U.S. is one of only 35 countries in the world (out of 195) that still grants almost universal birthright citizenship based on geographical location. And, as some believe with a pretty strong argument IMHO, that is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.

If—as some believe, and has been practiced since a very liberal interpretation decades ago—everyone born in the U.S. geographically was automatically a citizen, there would never have been a need for a separate, later Act to include Native Americans as citizens. This is a very strong argument for original intent.

I’m not sure the case coming before SCOTUS this week is as cut & dried as some would believe.

It will be very interesting to watch, and could have a profound impact on how well we can enforce our borders. I would think SCOTUS will have this in the back of their mind. Of course, POTUS hasn’t enamored himself with the Judicial Branch lately with his mouth and some of his actions, and people are people, so you never know.

I was attempting to show the lady that you said she was naturalized. I thought it comical that she agreed that she was a citizen. If she is naturalized, then she definitely is a citizen. Thank her for her service.

I’ll go back to my stance that our forefathers couldn’t foresee a traitor like Biden opening up our borders to an illegal invasion of this magnitude, and I’ll never sway from that opinion.

[Big girl]

6 hours ago, baddog said:

 

Key points about naturalized citizens: 

• Requirements:

  Requirements include continuous residence in the U.S., knowledge of English and U.S. civics, and demonstrating good moral character. 

   

• Same Rights:

  Naturalized citizens have the same rights and responsibilities as those born in the U.S.

   

• Oath of Allegiance:

  A crucial step in the naturalization process is taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and its laws. 

   

• Certificate of Naturalization:

  Upon successful completion of the process, a naturalized citizen receives a Certificate of Naturalization. 

• Voluntary Process:

  Naturalization is a voluntary process for non-U.S. born individuals to gain citizenship. 

   
• Eligibility:

  Generally, to become a naturalized citizen, an individual must be at least 18 years old, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for a specified number of years (3 or 5, depending on circumstances), and meet other requirements. 

   

Duh....

[Big girl]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

I was attempting to show the lady that you said she was naturalized. I thought it comical that she agreed that she was a citizen. If she is naturalized, then she definitely is a citizen. Thank her for her service.

I’ll go back to my stance that our forefathers couldn’t foresee a traitor like Biden opening up our borders to an illegal invasion of this magnitude, and I’ll never sway from that opinion.

Reagan offered amnesty to 3 million Hispanics. How do you feel about that

[baddog]

6 hours ago, Big girl said:

Duh....

My favorite anticipated answer. You should make a t-shirt.

[baddog]

6 hours ago, Big girl said:

Reagan offered amnesty to 3 million Hispanics. How do you feel about that

Do you ever research anything you post? It was considered a failure.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[thetragichippy]

26 minutes ago, baddog said:

Do you ever research anything you post?

I doubt it - she post to 'win" not to learn or discuss. 

She is not alone......

[UT alum]

On 5/9/2025 at 9:49 PM, OlDawg said:

Interesting reads.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Thoughts?

What do the founding fathers have to do with the 14th amendment? They were all dead when it passed. The Constitution is what they call a living document. Changes with the times. Had slavery not been abolished, the amendment would not have happened. That first sentence of section one is hard to get around. The only opinion that matters is one written by the Supreme Court.

[thetragichippy]

3 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That first sentence of section one is hard to get around.

Do you think Congress, in 1866 when they created the 14th amendment, planned on the President of the United States opening the border and letting almost 7 million illegals come in? Also, with 3-7 year waits for a hearing, think of all the babies that could be born. This needs to be addressed. 

[baddog]

6 hours ago, Big girl said:

Reagan offered amnesty to 3 million Hispanics. How do you feel about that

Your boy Obama deported 3 million, so are we even? You keep trying to nail republicans on an issue while totally overlooking history and democratic policies. Where were the protestors when Obama deported 3 million? Did they receive due process? Of course not. You have no answer for this so I will do it for you……”Yeah right” “Whatever”

[OlDawg]

13 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What do the founding fathers have to do with the 14th amendment? They were all dead when it passed. The Constitution is what they call a living document. Changes with the times. Had slavery not been abolished, the amendment would not have happened. That first sentence of section one is hard to get around. The only opinion that matters is one written by the Supreme Court.

So the Bill of Rights isn’t important, and can change anytime because the Founders are dead? Pretty lame argument.

The Constitution doesn’t change, and has never changed. Only the interpretations & additions.

But, since you say it changes with the times, then you’d have no objections to changing back to original intent of the Amendment authors.

[tvc184]

17 hours ago, Big girl said:

The fact that you were born here. If they get rid of birthright citizenship how will we know who are citizens?

Because of the Constitution.

 The term birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution.

 The Fourteenth Amendment says born in the United States AND subject to its jurisdiction.

 In the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins they ruled that even though Elk was born in US territory, the fact that he was born on a reservation, he was under the jurisdiction of his tribe. He was therefore not a US citizen just because he was born here. The subject to the jurisdiction is the problem.

 In US v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled on a person here lawfully. Wong was born on US soil to parents who were Chinese however they had been granted permanent citizenship. Since the US had granted his parents permanent status in this country, they were now under the jurisdiction of the US.

As the Fourteenth Amendment states, a person is a citizen at birth if born in the US AND subject to its jurisdiction. As ruled in Elk, being born here did not even make a Native American a US citizen. It was settled enough that the US Congress under their authority in Article I of the Constitution, passed a law giving all Native Americans born in the US citizenship.

So it literally took an act of Congress for them to be citizens. Why? Because the Supreme Court had already ruled that they were not citizens merely by being born on US soil.

In my first post I said there was about a 98% of birthright citizenship being confirmed by the Supreme Court but more out of tradition. They are going to throw their collective hands up and say, “oh well, regardless of the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, we don’t want to change tradition”.