On the same day President Donald Trump swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, he moved to violate its 14th Amendment by issuing an order to end birthright citizenship of some children born here. Although the 1868 Amendment declares, “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,” his order claims, “citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States.”
The order states it “shall be implemented consistent with applicable law,” as if it’s not declared in Article 6 that “this Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land.” In 2022, Trump issued a call for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” regardless of the fact that the 14th Amendment declares that only “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Recently, Trump falsely said on national TV that the U.S. is the only country with automatic birthright citizenship, when the fact is that 34 countries grant it. In 2019, he said that Article 2 (executive branch) gives him the power “to do whatever I want as president,” ignoring the powers of the legislative branch (Article 1) and judicial branch (Article 3).
Babies born after Feb. 20 will need documented proof about whether each of their parents is here legally—either temporarily or permanently or as citizens—to be considered as one of those with all the benefits, rights, and responsibilities that citizenship confers. Trump is using the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to carve out a way to deny citizenship to those rightly deserving it.
Those who think the Trump administration won’t carve out additional unconstitutional exceptions stripping them of their rights would be wise to recognize that they may expand beyond the fallacious and paranoid white supremacist Great Replacement conspiracy theory that our country is being invaded by Black and brown people to overcome white social and political dominance, orchestrated by Democrats and/or Jews.
Trump’s DOJ is already doing it in court to Native Americans, citing the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins Supreme Court case, denying citizenship to Native Americans because their allegiance is to their tribes and, therefore, aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The DOJ is pretending like the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, granting the First Americans born here full citizenship, doesn’t exist.
This isn’t just a Constitutional or legal matter. It’s a moral one. Christians know their Bible says children shouldn’t suffer from the wrongs of their parents (Ezekiel 18): “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (expressed in the patriarchal terms of the time). It clarifies that the consequences of sins are suffered only by the “wicked” who commit them, not by their offspring.
It also involves our traditional, collective civic religion of recognizing the dignity and humanity of all who come to life among us, linking all of us in a bond of fellowship and a commitment “to form a more perfect union.”
The Preamble of the Declaration of Independence declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [people] are created equal, … endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Preamble to the Constitution states that, “We the people of the United States” created it to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (children).
Trump has declared a war of “retribution” on the “enemy from within” who he says is more dangerous than any foreign entity, making scapegoats of any who criticize any of his policies or actions. This is the ideology of the monarchy we rebelled against in 1776 and the fascism we fought in WWII. Whether or not we preserve our democratic republic depends on our willingness to fight for it, as Ben Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention approved the Constitution in 1787. Δ
David Broadwater writes from Atascadero. Send comments in response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Feb 20 – Mar 2, 2025.
Trump”s inequity depends on a compliant Congress and SCOTUS, none of them are raising a single objection. Why? Because, in the case of Congress, both they and Trump are beholden to the same corporate interests that grease the wheels of both branches.
Until they all foreswear corporate campaign contributions, private interests will reign supreme. Those private interests include impoverishing the rest of us, starving federal, if not eliminating entirely, departments that administer the dispensation of the benefits we paid for and that bind us as a people and nation.
There’s a reason why wealthy individuals and corporations make extra contributions to a president’s inauguration. The president’s inauguration is sponsored by, Raytheon, Boeing, General Mills, Taco Bell, McDonalds, General Dynamics, etc. Americans eat their garbage food and fight their garbage wars.
This is the end of the Republic, folks. All that’s left for us to do now is rally by torchlight in Nuremberg, burn books, and if our Dear Leader and the fascists that surround him have their way, run every single American that isn’t of Teutonic extraction, out of the bounds of what was until now, a free country.
As someone who is of Jewish and African-American heritage, I suppose the only patriotic thing left for me to do now is turn myself into a lampshade or bar of soap.
John Donegan would call me paranoid and hysterical for worrying about the fate of our democracy. I’m curious how he will tap dance around the first 30 days of our “Long live the king” administration.
The issue, of course, is what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? Are tourists and people flying over the US but not landing on US soil qualified? To an extent, they are subject to US jurisdiction. For example, if the committed a crime flying over US territory, they could be prosecuted. But on the other hand, they don’t pay taxes here, are not subject to obligations like military conscription or jury duty, and are not otherwise subject to the duties of Americans. Perhaps the issue is not quite as cut and dry as you might like.
Steve:
Never tangle with a lawyer (John).
John, SCOTUS settled it
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen. This case highlighted a disagreement between the Justices over the precise meaning of one key phrase in the Citizenship Clause: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Of course with this activist SCOTUS, who knows, Cheeto might get a 3rd term
@Jon K: The Wong Kim Ark case applied to a child born to legal immigrants who were domiciled in the US. Whether it applies to the children of illegal immigrants is still in issue, especially if they are only temporarily present, such as my hypothetical “fly over” tourists example.