'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’: Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment
2025-02-25
Loading video...
Source: Congress.gov
Summary
This hearing investigates the constitutional meaning of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause, focusing on the original intent of the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' phrase. Witnesses argue that the framers intended birthright citizenship only for children of parents with full allegiance to the United States, excluding illegal aliens and temporary visitors. The hearing examines historical context, Supreme Court cases like Wong Kim Ark, and policy concerns such as birth tourism and national security threats. Key participants include legal experts and legislators who assert that current interpretations of the 14th Amendment have been expanded beyond its original intent, with some suggesting that Congress should revise the law to align with its historical understanding and prevent the creation of a 'permanent underclass' of stateless children. The discussion highlights debates over constitutional interpretation, federal authority, and the broader implications for American values and immigration policy.
Participants
Transcript
The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on birthright citizenship. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. As Supreme Court Justice Louise Brandeis once wrote, the most important office and the one which all of us can and should fill is that of private citizen. This hearing is on the issue foundational to our republic. Who is an American citizen by birthright? Section 1 of the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all persons who are, quote, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, end quote. It is the latter clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that we will examine today in significant part. Our inquiry is simple. What was the original public meaning of the jurisdiction clause? The 14th Amendment was drafted to rectify the terrible decision in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case by recognizing former slaves as rightful Americans. As we'll learn from our witnesses today, the answer is clear. The Jurisdiction Clause, as originally understood, grants birthright citizenship only to children whose parents have full exclusive allegiance to the United States. The constitutional text in history shows that children of illegal aliens and legal aliens who are in the United States temporarily are not citizens by birthright under the 14th Amendment. For decades, proponents of automatic birthright citizenship have claimed the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case bestows automatic citizenship to all children born to foreign nationals, including illegal aliens. This is a blatant misunderstanding of both items, resulting in birthright citizenship serving as a driving force of illegal immigration to the United States, as many illegal aliens and temporary visa holders know they can reap the benefits of their child's citizenship. President Trump's first day executive order on birthright citizenship restored the 14th Amendment to this original meaning. Despite what you may hear on the news, some of the most respected legal scholars agree with the constitutional interpretation outlined in President Trump's executive order. Some of these legal scholars include those here on this panel today.
Our witnesses will dive into the history of the 14th Amendment in Congress and the Supreme Court, but I'll give you a brief version. The drafters of the 14th Amendment understood not to grant citizenship to persons, quote, owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, end quote. And in the first cases decided after ratification, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Of course, illegal aliens and legal temporary United States residents do not owe complete, direct, and immediate allegiance to the United States. And therefore, their children are not citizens by birthright under the 14th Amendment. Now I'm sure we'll hear a lot from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about Supreme Court precedent as well. So let us make one thing clear at the outset. The Supreme Court has never held that children of illegal aliens or aliens who are in the United States temporarily are entitled to birthright citizenship. President Trump's executive order is consistent with Supreme Court precedent. I'd also like to emphasize the purpose of today's hearing. We're here to discuss an important constitutional question. This is, after all, the Constitution subcommittee. And I hope that we can keep our focus on the text and history of the 14th Amendment. But no doubt some of the policy implications will come up. And it would be a disservice not to at least mention those important issues implicated by the constitutional question. In addition to twisting the Constitution, a court precedent conferring automatic citizenship is a bad policy. It devalues the meaning of American citizenship by bestowing it to the children of lawbreakers who entered the United States without the consent of its people, almost rewarding them for trespassing into our country's soil. To add context, an estimated 124,000 to 300,000 so-called anchor babies, which are children born to illegal aliens, are born each year according to the Center for Immigration Studies. In 2023,
Up to 250,000 children were born to illegal aliens in 2023, which accounted for 7% of total births in the nation that year. Moreover, it further strains government programs that are already strained. For example, in terms of supplemental nutrition assistance, SNAP, which provides school meals, Americans shell out $5 billion each year in SNAP and food stamps for the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, according to a 2023 report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. If one looks at the amount illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children are projected to consume in federal welfare program benefits, the American taxpayer foots an even larger bill. Take, for example, in a July 2024 report, the Congressional Budget Office, that answers to us, concluded that the federal government is projected to spend $177 billion in welfare benefits to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children over the next 10 years. Now, mindful, that is a larger population, but it is clear that the A birthright citizenship issue implicates those issues. This $177 billion includes Medicaid, SSI, Obamacare premium tax credits, food stamps, and more. Ending universal birthright citizenship, and thereby ending birth tourism, a practice in which pregnant women travel to the United States to give birth and secure citizenship for their children, is good policy. Birth tourism diverts U.S. medical resources away from our own mothers and babies and allows shady and unscrupulous birth tourism agencies to prey on expectant mothers.
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.