I think this is an important debate for us to have in the United States. There's a lot that's been lost in translation over time with respect to the Constitution as we continually seek to parse language to mean things that aren't necessarily there. The best tools we have are to go behind the curtain and see what went on during the debate in those days.
First a look at the 14th Amendment:
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.
The principle debate deals with "subject to the jurisdiction" and what that means. In 1866 when asked about this, Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment) was asked what the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant, he responded: “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.”
The guiding principle behind the 14th Amendment was to correct the repugnant Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the freed slaves. The verbiage in the Citizenship Clause was derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth would obviously be excluded from this definition.
In response to what Trumbull said, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, . . . ; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
The United States Supreme Court has never fully ruled on this matter. My opinion is that we need that and then we can decide as a nation what we think is the right path. In either case, a person born to people here on a Green Card or some sort of legal residency would not be what is considered an "anchor baby." They fall under the jurisdiction of the United States and their legal status would follow that of their parents. What if they were here on a work Visa, had a child that was automatically deemed a US Citizen and then wished to return to their country of origin only to find their child was not allowed there because he/she wasn't a citizen of said nation? There's a lot of complexity here that requires a genuine dialogue. What someone thinks of Trump has nothing to do with this. This is a question for our future and the person who is President during this is irrelevant. That's the great thing about the United States. What we do is of the people and therefore not subject to the whims of a President no matter how much we may like or dislike that person.
Hat tip to Mark Pulliam for the sourcing of some of what I posted.
