The 14th Amendment of the US constitution 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." While the Framers would never have contemplated that this Amendment would have been used as a weapon by globalists and neo-Marxists to enable illegals to stay in America merely by having a baby in the US, this is what has happened.
Trump has sought to end "birthright" citizenship by executive order, but this is now under legal challenge by California AG, Rob Bonta, along with 18 other state attorneys.
This issue will go to the US Supreme Court. There the issue will be how to interpret the 14th Amendment. As detailed below, there are three ways at least for this Amendment to be read down, or restricted:
(1) Find that the drafters intended for the mother to be lawfully present.
(2) Find that the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) Find that the rule stated in the literal text is contrary to reason.
Meanwhile, illegals with birthright children, can be deported with their child as Vance and Trump have said. Families can be kept together, as they are all deported.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/01/imaginary_birthright.html
"On Tuesday, California AG, Rob Bonta, along with 18 other state attorneys general challenged in court an executive order signed by President Trump ending birthright citizenship. Bonta asserted that birthright citizenship, a situation in which a child born in this country to illegally present foreigners automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, is a "longstanding foundational right" and that Trump's action sets "a terrifying tone" for the rest of his term. Should Trump's order be allowed to stand, Bonta said, it would deny citizenship to more than 20,000 babies a year in California alone, cutting them off from access to federal benefits and programs. The order could also put at risk states' access to federal funding from programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. "Birthright citizenship is foundational to our nation's history, to California's history, to our very identity," Bonta said.
I find it ironic that Bonta cares so much about birthright citizenship to 20,000 babies a year but is not the least concerned with denying the right to birth to 179,660 babies a year in California. I would assert that the right to life is a "longstanding foundational right" that trumps (no pun intended) the claim of birthright citizenship. Moreover, no matter how painful the loss of state access to federal funding may seem to Bonta and others in the bloated California bureaucracy, it is hardly worth losing sleep over for the rest of us.
Bonta never addresses what value birthright citizenship might bestow upon an infant while his parents remain illegal aliens. The parents are not going to leave him behind if they are deported. The parents might see some advantage in using their infant as a pawn ("anchor baby") in a contest with the U.S. government to remain in the country but that is it.
The cases of which I am personally aware involve citizens of countries in the Middle East and South America flying to the USA to give birth. They return to their country a few weeks after giving birth and continue their lives satisfied that they have conferred upon their offspring the advantage of U.S. citizenship, one that their children are free to exercise in the future if they choose.
I don't think that if either of the aforementioned "birthright citizenship" uses were disallowed that it would undermine the foundation of our nation's history or identity. Bonta is acting like a drama queen on this one.
The most laughable element of Bonta's argument is his contention that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to enable what we see today. I contend that if the framers were alive today, they would be scratching their heads in bewilderment about our present predicament. They might even call up the Union army thinking that Mexico was trying to reconquer its lost territories.
"The birthright citizenship dispute is surely destined for the United States Supreme Court. Is there any legal authority for that court to issue a decision abrogating birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens?
The foundational rock-bottom grandfather principle of all systems of law is that the law is the will of the lawgiver. This is what Richard II meant when he said, "The laws are in my mouth," and it was for this very stance that Charles I lost his head.
Under this legal doctrine, a statute is the will of the legislature, and a constitutional provision is the will of the constitutional convention. The quest, therefore, of a court tasked with interpreting a statute or constitutional passage is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature or constitutional convention that drafted the legal text under review.
We are all familiar with instances where a person utters a statement he does not literally mean. Thus, one might wonder whether a court might, on occasion, find that a legislature did not literally mean what it wrote in a statute.
Yes, that does happen, and when it happens, what is a court to do? Well, the principle of interpretation is that the court must declare the law to be what the legislature intended rather than what it wrote. This distinction between literal text and actual intent is expressed in the legal doctrine that the text of a statute is evidence of the law but is not necessarily the law itself. Thus, it is that in the event of a text/intent dichotomy, it is the intent, not the text, which is the law.
Now, the birthright passage in question is the sentence in the 14th Amendment that 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."
This text presents two puzzles for a reviewing court:
Puzzle #1: Did the drafters intend to require that the mother be lawfully present in the United States at the time of the birth?
Paul Dowling presents a cogent argument that the drafters intended exactly that.
Puzzle #2: Did the drafters intend that the newborn child must not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation other than the United States?
Ryan McMaken claims that the "original meaning" of the 14th Amendment "refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual."
And finally, let us note that many readers know that constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz has recently been quoted as saying, "I think birthright citizenship was a dumb idea." He also remarked that birthright citizenship is "foolish."
Dershowitz's comments might wheel into play a grand principle of law that conditions even the will of the lawgiver. The principle "Cessat Ratio, Cessat Lex," translated as "What is not reason is not law," authorizes a court to invalidate a statute or constitutional passage based on irrationality.
Therefore, in conclusion, there are (at least) three ways for the Supreme Court to rule contrary to the literal text of the birthright citizenship passage:
(1) Find that the drafters intended for the mother to be lawfully present.
(2) Find that the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(3) Find that the rule stated in the literal text is contrary to reason."