House Immigration Subcommittee Examines the Constitutionality and Merits of Birthright Citizenship

Chris Chmielenski, Numbers USA, May 1, 2015

For the first time in 10 years, the issue of Birthright Citizenship was in the forefront on Capitol Hill this week when the House Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on Wednesday. The hearing sought to determine if Birthright Citizenship is the right policy for America, but it focused less on the policy question, and more on whether or not it’s a Constitutional mandate via the 14th Amendment.

The first section of the 14th Amendment reads, “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.”

Rep. Steve King’s (R-Iowa) Birthright Citizenship bill, H.R.140, would require at least one parent of a child born in the United States to be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident for the child to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore receive automatic citizenship.

Panelist and President of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, argued that everyone in the United States is subject to U.S. laws and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction”, but both Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director for the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and Lino Graglia, a University of Texas law professor, argued that the phrase would simply be redundant if it meant all persons in the United States, so it must serve a purpose.

Dr. Eastman made a distinction between those who are within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and those who owe allegiance to the U.S.

“Think of it this way: foreign tourists visiting the United States subject themselves to the laws of the United States while here,” Eastman wrote in his prepared statement. “An Englishman must drive on the right side of the road rather than the left, for example, when visiting here. But they do not owe allegiance to the United States, they do not get to exercise any part of the political power of the United States, and they cannot be tried for treason if they take up arms against the United States.”

Dr. Eastman also explained why the issue is such a hot topic in the modern immigration debate, calling Birthright Citizenship the third largest magnet for illegal immigration after jobs and welfare services. Center for Immigration Studies Legal Policy Analyst, Jon Feere, backed up that claim in his testimony.

“Every year, 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is now to an illegal immigrant mothe r,” Feere wrote in his prepared statement. “[U]nder [Pres. Obama’s] DAPA program (the Deferred action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program), it would provide benefits to illegal immigrants who gave birth here and allow them to ‘stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.'”

As Roy notes in his blog on the topic, “H.R. 140 would put an end to babies being used as a kind of shield for lawbreakers and would return them to just being the children of foreign citizens who would be expected to take their full family back home with them, just like any other civilized family would be expected to do–and just like is expected in most countries around the world where babies take the citizenship of their parents, not from the soil where their mothers happened to give birth.”

The question of whether or not the policy of granting automatic citizenship is good or not wasn’t discussed extensively, but Rep. King did note that if his legislation were passed and signed into law, he expected a legal challenge. In defense of their positions, most panelists referred to a Supreme Court decision or Senate transcripts from more than a century ago, so Feere argued that Congress should act and put the issue to the test.

“Some Administration decided to give them a Social Security number and a passport and no one really knows when,” Feere said. “I th ink Congress hasn’t addressed the problem, and as a result of not addressing it, we’re relying on floor statements from 100 years ago. We’re relying on a footnote from a Supreme Court case in 1982. I think some clarification from Congress would help a lot.”

Dr. Eastman agreed that the ball is in Congress’ court.

“Congress has the power over naturalization; it’s a plenary power, and that means you get to set the policy of how large or small or how restrained or unrestrained our immigration into this country is going to be,” he said.

We continue to urge House Members to cosponsor Rep. Steve King’s bill, so please check your Action Board for any actions you can take.

House Committee approves DACA amendment

On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 that would encourage the Secretary of Def ense to consider waiving military enlistment requirements to allow DACA recipients to join the military. The Democrat-led amendment had just enough Republican support to be approved by the Committee.

Title 10 of existing federal law already provides the Secretary of Defense with discretion when it comes to allowing illegal aliens to join the military, so the amendment, which only expresses the sense of Congress, was unnecessary. But by approving the amendment, Congress could affirm Pres. Obama’s 2012 unconstitutional executive amnesty. The House breaks for a week-long recess, but we’ll be working to strip the amendment out of the final bill before it’s passed by the House, so be on the lookout early next week for action opportunities.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Oil Can Harry

    In order to cut down on birth tourism these foreigners who give birth here should be fully billed for their hospital stay. With no waivers for pleading poverty.

    • Light from the East

      I support the abolition of gaining the US citizenship by birth. Asians should first self-regulate such secretive and crafty activities such as birth tourism in self-sufficient shelters. By doing this, there is more room for Asians and Whites to cooperate to keep each other’s culture and put large amount of pressure to other low-IQ immigrants since minority of the minority has shown a good example with self-discipline. I, with Chinese background, know what Asian transgressors think even before they make their moves, and I may be able to solve it.

  • phillyguy

    We have to stop the explosion of Mexicans and Asians.

    • Samuel Hathaway

      Speaking of Asians….

      • Tiffany Howard

        ➲➲➲➲➲➲GET PR0FIT FROM COMFORT OF Y0UR [email protected]< Google is

        <<<<<

        ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ < http://WWW.WORKREPORT90.COM

        < JUST OPEN THIS AND CLICK ANY LINK TO SEE PROOF PAGE >

      • Mary Botts

        ♥♡♦♢♔♕MAKE PR0FIT FROM COMFORT OF UR [email protected]< Google is

        <<<<<
        ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ < http://WWW.WorkReport90.COM

        < JUST 0PEN THIS AND CLICK ANY LINK T0 Look PROOF PAGE >

  • The Democrat-led amendment had just enough Republican support to be approved by the Committee.

    Precisely three Republicans, to be precise. One of them was Mike Coffman (Traitor-CO), who replaced Tom Tancredo in Congress. The other two, one was from Mexifornia and the other from New Dominican Republic New York.

  • Chip Carver

    The SPLC testifying in favor of birthright citizenship. The usual suspects showing their true colors once again. No surprises here.

    • Jason Lewis

      Richard Cohen. nuff said.

      • John Smith

        Morris Seligman Dees and Mark Potok round things out.

  • JackKrak

    Try to imagine the look on the face of every politician that had a hand in passing the 14th amendment if you could go back in time and tell them it would be used to give citizenship to Mexicans whose mothers walked over the border and relatively well-to-do Chinese moms who want their kids to have access to American universities.

  • Jason Lewis

    I’ve brought up repealling birthright citizenship and most people have a cow.

    • LexiconD1

      Where? Because I’ve never had people disagree with me, even on the Los Angeles Times threads.

    • Alexandra1973

      It was never the rule to begin with.

      First off, the 14th Amendment was never really ratified.

      Secondly, the writers of that amendment specifically stated, in so many words, that it wasn’t intended to grant birthright citizenship.

      • Jason Lewis

        Seems it needs to be challanged in court.

  • MekongDelta69

    Revoke ALL illegal alien kids’ citizenship & then deport ALL illegal aliens.

    “Operation Wetback II”

    • LexiconD1

      A retroactive repeal would be wonderful.

  • InAFreeCountry

    The Founding Fathers and the writers of the 14th Amendment TOTALLY had this in mind when they passed it.

    • The Worlds Scapegoat

      Is that a man’s hand on her breast?

      .

      • InAFreeCountry

        She has man hands.

  • Light from the East

    The 14th Amendment surely is a big obstacle for all of our movements.