President Trump recently announced that he was looking into issuing an executive order stating that the Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship to individuals born here to people who are not legally here. This has long been wanted by nationalists and immigration restrictionists, who want to stop the prospect of anchor babies, where legal and illegal aliens give birth on US soil, in order to gain their children citizenship and then help legalize the rest of the family. The announcement caused the usual uproar from all parts of the political space, most claiming that the President can not change the Constitution.
Unfortunately, for these complaints, the President is not changing the Constitution, he is interpreting it. This will, of course, lead to lawsuits and the issue will be adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, which will determine whether the interpretation is correct. While the Court has ruled on aspects of the 14th Amendment, but it has not ruled on the key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Let us look at the Amendment:
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
It is interesting how we have gone from simple amendments in the original ten plus two, to complicated multi-section amendments. The intent of the amendment at the time was to resolve the problem of freed blacks being denied State citizenship and rights, and consequently US citizenship and rights. The inclusion of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has to have been deliberate. What it means, is, like many parts of the Constitution, subject to interpretation. It never has been resolved. This is in fact absolutely a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, unlike many cases that are political questions (Obamacare). It is a legal question requiring a legal interpretation. What exactly does that phrase mean?
One of the writers, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan offers some insight:
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.
No one seems to dispute that an ambassador having children here does not confer citizenship. That is what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean. Since the laws are applied to illegal immigrants and visitors, they must be subject to jurisdiction. And if they are not, they can not be illegal, and apparently cannot commit any crimes and have free reign. It is not clear that this is what the phrase actually means. When looking at the Howard quote, one person suggested to me that the parts “foreigners, aliens” is just emphasizing what the diplomats are. This is absurd on its face and there is no reason to build in so much redundancy. It most likely is pulling out four classes of people who cannot have birthright citizenship conferred upon their children.
It is also worth noting that “Indians” were excluded from birthright citizenship as long as they still held tribal loyalty. At least until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which applied it to them, regardless of tribal affiliation. This suggests that being born here does not mean you get citizenship. One could argue they aboriginal peoples are a special case, but it helps open the question.
A case commonly cited is that of Chinese Wong Kim Ark, who was born here, left, and then tried to return, but was denied entry under the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was ruled that he must be allowed in because he was a legitimate citizen by birth. The key is, his parents were here legally residing. The question of whether visitors (nonresident legal aliens) and illegal immigrants (illegal aliens) can give birth here and their children receive citizenship has never been adjudicated. It will soon. The president seems set to issue the executive order, and Senator Lindsay Graham, formerly a moderate and immigration proponent, now wants to introduce a bill. Both will obviously and rightly be challenged.
The case might not reach the Supreme Court before Trumps reelection, which will add some intrigue. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires or dies before then, and is replaced with a conservative, the decision could go 6-3. The Court, as it stands, has a good chance to make it 5-4 in favor of restricting citizenship. While Roberts and Gorsuch might be held up as swing votes, they do seem to be conservative in areas like this. Roberts ruled for Obamacare because he found ways to make it legal, but invalidated parts of it, and was not pleased with it. However, he felt it was better resolved in Congress. Gorsuch recently made the majority in an illegal immigrant deportation case, but his principle was the law was too broad and vague. In a case here, the two are likely to go to their roots and explain the intent of the Amendment is to prevent discrimination against those legally resident, not to allow anyone to come here for a day and give birth.
We wont know until it reaches there, but the process is beginning. While libertarians seem apoplectic about this proposal, it must be reiterated Trump is not changing the amendment, he is interpreting it, just like they are. Yes, saying its an open door is an interpretation. The Amendment is not at all clear. Second, libertarians ought to be wary, as I have stated before, of open immigration. We still have a welfare state and we still have elections. We have enough statists and socialists as it is. We do not need any more influencing our country. Regardless, it warms my heart to see such vigorous debate over the Constitution. We would do well to have more of that.
Rais Donald Trump ametoa amri ya kuondoa sheria ya Marekani ya sheria ya 14th Amendment ambayo inatoa haki ya kuwa raia wa Marekani kwa watu waliozaliwa nchini humo bila ya kuwa na sheria. "Hii imekuwa kwa muda mrefu kutamaniwa na wazalendo na wawakilishi wa vizuizi vya uhamiaji, ambao wanataka kukomesha matarajio ya ""watoto wa nanga,"" ambapo wageni halali na haramu huzaa kwenye udongo wa Marekani, ili kupata watoto wao uraia na kisha kusaidia kuhalalisha familia iliyobaki." Taarifa hiyo ilisababisha msukosuko wa kawaida kutoka sehemu zote za nafasi ya kisiasa, wengi wakidai kwamba Rais hawezi kubadilisha Katiba. "Kwa bahati mbaya, kwa malalamiko haya, Rais haibadilishi Katiba, anaitafsiri. """ Hii, bila shaka, itasababisha kesi za kisheria na suala hilo litahukumiwa hadi Mahakama Kuu, ambayo itaamua kama tafsiri ni sahihi. Mahakama hiyo imetoa uamuzi juu ya mambo ya marekebisho ya 14 lakini haijaamua juu ya maneno muhimu "kutegemea mamlaka yake." Hebu tuangalie marekebisho: Sehemu ya 1. Watu wote waliozaliwa au naturalized katika Marekani, na chini ya mamlaka yake, ni raia wa Marekani na ya Jimbo ambapo wao kuishi. Hakuna Jimbo litakalotunga au kutekeleza sheria yoyote ambayo itapunguza mapendeleo au kinga ya raia wa Marekani, wala hakuna Jimbo litakalotenga maisha, uhuru, au mali ya mtu yeyote bila utaratibu sahihi wa sheria, wala kukataa mtu yeyote ndani ya mamlaka yake ulinzi sawa wa sheria. Sehemu ya 5. Bunge litakuwa na mamlaka ya kutekeleza, kwa sheria inayofaa, masharti ya kifungu hiki. Ni ya kuvutia jinsi tumekwenda kutoka marekebisho rahisi katika kumi ya awali pamoja na mbili, kwa marekebisho tata ya sehemu nyingi. "Lengo la marekebisho hayo wakati huo lilikuwa kutatua tatizo la kuwazuia weusi waliowekwa huru kupata uraia na haki za serikali, na kwa hivyo uraia na haki za Marekani.""" Kuingizwa kwa maneno <unk>na chini ya mamlaka yake<unk> lazima kuwa ni makusudi. Maana yake, kama sehemu nyingi za Katiba, inapaswa kutafsiriwa. Haijawahi kutatuliwa. "Hii ni suala la mahakama ya juu, tofauti na kesi nyingi ambazo ni ""swala la kisiasa"" (Obamacare)." Ni swali la kisheria linalohitaji tafsiri ya kisheria. Maneno hayo yanamaanisha nini hasa? "Mmoja wa waandishi, Seneta Jacob Howard wa Michigan, anatoa ufahamu: ""Hii, bila shaka, haitakuwa ni pamoja na watu waliozaliwa katika Marekani ambao ni wageni, wageni, ambao ni wa familia ya mabalozi au mawaziri wa kigeni waliokubaliwa na Serikali ya Marekani, lakini itajumuisha kila aina nyingine ya watu." Hakuna anayeonekana kupinga kwamba balozi kuwa na watoto hapa haitoi uraia. Hiyo ndiyo maana ya "kutegemea mamlaka yake" lazima ieleweke. Kwa kuwa sheria hizo zinatumika kwa wahamiaji na wageni haramu, ni lazima wawe chini ya mamlaka. Na kama hawawezi, hawawezi kuwa haramu, na inaonekana hawawezi kufanya uhalifu wowote na kuwa na utawala huru. Haijulikani wazi kwamba hilo ndilo maana halisi ya usemi huo. "Wakati wa kuelezea taarifa ya Howard, mtu mmoja aliniambia kwamba sehemu ""wageni, wageni"" ni tu kusisitiza nini wanadiplomasia ni." Hii ni absurd juu ya uso wake na hakuna sababu ya kujenga katika redundancy hivyo sana. "Hii ni kwa sababu kuna vikundi vinne vya watu ambao hawawezi kuwa na uraia wa ""uzazi"" kwa watoto wao." Pia ni muhimu kutambua kwamba "Wahindi" walikuwa kutengwa na uraia wa haki ya kuzaliwa kwa muda mrefu kama wao bado uliofanyika uaminifu kikabila. Sheria ya Uraia wa India ya 1924 iliwawezesha kuwa raia wa India bila kujali kabila lao. Hii inaonyesha kwamba kuzaliwa hapa haimaanishi unapata uraia. Mtu anaweza kusema kwamba watu wa asili ni kesi maalum, lakini inasaidia kufungua swali. "Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, Kim Jong-un aliwahi kumshambulia Wang Kim-ark, ambaye alizaliwa nchini China, kisha akaondoka na kujaribu kurudi, lakini alikataliwa kuingia chini ya Sheria ya Uondoaji wa Wachina. """ Iliamuliwa kwamba alipaswa kuruhusiwa kuingia kwa sababu alikuwa raia halali kwa kuzaliwa. Jambo kuu ni kwamba, wazazi wake walikuwa wakikaa hapa kisheria. Swali la kama wageni (wageni wa kisheria wasio wakazi) na wahamiaji haramu (wageni haramu) wanaweza kuzaa hapa na watoto wao kupokea uraia haijawahi kuamuliwa. Muda si muda itatokea. Rais wa Marekani, Donald Trump, ametoa amri ya kuondoa sheria hiyo, na Seneta wa Marekani, Lindsay Graham, ambaye zamani alikuwa mpinzani wa sheria za uhamiaji, sasa anataka kuanzisha sheria hiyo. Ni wazi kwamba mambo yote mawili yatapingwa. Kesi hiyo inaweza kuwa haijafika Mahakama Kuu kabla ya Trump kuchaguliwa tena, ambayo itaongeza baadhi ya njama. Ikiwa Ruth Bader Ginsburg ataondoka au atakufa kabla ya wakati huo, na kubadilishwa na kihafidhina, uamuzi unaweza kwenda 6-3. Mahakama hiyo imesema kuwa ina nafasi kubwa ya kuamua kwa kura ya 5-4 kwa ajili ya kupunguza uraia. Roberts na Gorsuch wanaonekana kuwa na maoni tofauti, lakini wanaonekana kuwa waangalifu katika maeneo kama haya. Roberts alishinda kwa ajili ya Obamacare kwa sababu alipata njia ya kuifanya kisheria, lakini kufuta sehemu zake, na hakuwa na furaha na hilo. Hata hivyo, alihisi ilikuwa bora kutatuliwa katika Bunge. Gorsuch hivi karibuni alifanya wengi katika kesi ya uhamiaji haramu uhamisho, lakini kanuni yake ilikuwa sheria ilikuwa pana sana na vague. "Wanafunzi hao wawili wamekuwa wakisema kuwa lengo la marekebisho hayo ni ""kuzuia ubaguzi dhidi ya wale wanaokaa kisheria, na kutoruhusu mtu yeyote kuja hapa kwa siku moja na kuzaa.""" Hatujui mpaka ifikie hapo, lakini mchakato unaanza. Ingawa wanaharakati wa uhuru wanaonekana kuwa na wasiwasi juu ya pendekezo hili, ni lazima ikumbukwe kwamba Trump haibadilishi marekebisho, anafafanua, kama wao. Ndiyo, kusema ni mlango wazi ni tafsiri. Marekebisho hayo hayaeleweki kabisa. Pili, Libertarians wanapaswa kuwa makini, kama nilivyosema kabla, ya uhamiaji wazi. Bado tuna serikali ya ustawi na bado tuna uchaguzi. Tuna wachache wachache wa wanasiasa na wa-socialists kama ilivyo. Hatuhitaji tena kuathiri nchi yetu. Bila kujali, inanifurahisha sana kuona mjadala wenye nguvu kama huo juu ya Katiba. Tungefanya vizuri kuwa na mengi zaidi ya hayo.