Introduction

Donald Trump made a promise during his campaign to end birthright citizenship, also known as the concept of jus soli (right of soil). However, the legal framework for this is complex and contentious. This article will delve into the historical context of the 14th Amendment, its provisions, and the challenges facing any attempt to change birthright citizenship.

Historical Background

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, was a pivotal piece of legislation during the aftermath of the Civil War. Its purpose was to grant citizenship and liberties to formerly enslaved people. The Amendment is composed of five sections, with Section 1 being the most relevant to this discussion:

“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.”

This section is often interpreted to mean that anyone born in the United States, provided they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., are automatically granted citizenship. However, the language and legal interpretation of this amendment have been a subject of debate over the years.

Legal Interpretation

The United States v. Wong Kim Ark case of 1898 is a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that clarified much of the ambiguity surrounding birthright citizenship.

In this case, the Court held that:

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship status, unless the parents are in the country for a temporary or diplomatic purpose. The term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to the rule of the territory and its laws, not allegiance to a monarch or foreign power.

Challenges to Altering Birthright Citizenship

Attempting to change birthright citizenship through legislation or executive order is fraught with legal battles. Here are the major challenges:

Constitional Interpretation: The 14th Amendment is not merely a statutory law; it is part of the Constitution. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy and extremely difficult process. It requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principles of the 14th Amendment in various cases. Any attempt to alter the interpretation would likely face legal challenges and be subject to review by the Supreme Court. Public Opinion and Political Feasibility: While some may support ending birthright citizenship, the issue is deeply polarizing. Politicians need to weigh the political ramifications of such a change, including potential backlash and its effect on public support.

Recent Efforts and Quotations

Donald Trump, during his presidency, sought to end birthright citizenship but lacked concrete proposals or legislative actions. His supporters often cited the text of the 14th Amendment:

“Im not 100 for sure about it, but I know that it was it dose not mean what people think it means youre just hitting the wording you can look it up.”

This statement reflects some ambiguity and misunderstanding of the legal text. Yet, the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" remains a key point of contention.

Conclusion

While Donald Trump has expressed his desire to end birthright citizenship, the legal and practical barriers are significant. The 14th Amendment is deeply rooted in U.S. law and has been widely interpreted and applied by the judiciary. Any change would necessitate a constitutional amendment, a complex process that is unlikely to pass.

Legal scholars, politicians, and the public will continue to debate this issue, with implications not just for immigration policy but for the principles of citizenship and the rule of law.