The Fourteenth Amendment includes a statement asserting that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are nationals of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that lays out a U.S. policy indicating that citizenship documents will not be granted to individuals whose mothers were in the country illegally and whose fathers were neither citizens nor permanent residents at the time of their birth.
A notable legal challenge to this order reached the U.S. Supreme Court recently. The ruling stated, “Children born in the United States to illegally or temporarily present parents are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
In response, some conservatives are seeking legal avenues to prevent the U.S. from becoming a haven for those they believe seek citizenship opportunistically.
Missouri State Senator Eric Schmidt (Republican) pointed out that the Supreme Court’s ruling, while it seemed to normalize unrestricted birthright citizenship, appeared to leave some openings for Congress to act.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in a partially dissenting opinion, remarked that while the executive order is not a violation of the 14th Amendment, it does conflict with federal law. He suggested that Congress could potentially amend existing laws to create exceptions for those born to non-citizen parents.
Schmidt expressed that the Court’s decision “destroys our republic” and argued for a constitutional amendment to reclaim American citizenship, prioritizing “We the People.” He emphasized that when a judicial error is embedded in constitutional interpretation, the remedy must be significant.
He plans to introduce a bill aimed at amending Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which he contends should clarify that individuals born in the U.S. are subject to foreign power unless their parents are citizens or legally admitted as permanent residents at the time of birth.
Schmidt stressed that this proposed change wouldn’t retroactively impact those already born. He believes it would adhere to an original understanding of citizenship and affirm the right of Americans to define their political community, highlighting loyalty and permanence in citizenship.
Justices like Samuel Alito, among others, have critiqued the majority’s ruling as a substantial deviation from historical interpretation, suggesting that it alters the traditional meaning of “subject to jurisdiction.” They pointed out several inconsistencies and questioned the rationale behind the new interpretation.
Alito stated that the Court had made a significant mistake, with potentially severe consequences for the nation.
Trump indicated that the Supreme Court’s complexities could be resolved through legislative action, asserting that lengthy constitutional amendments are unnecessary.
