The Supreme Court Established 140 Years Ago That Foreign Nationals Born in the U.S. Are Not Citizens
by
Birthright citizenship goes to court.
Experts say.
On the Original Legal Meaning of “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” – Reason
A Five-Word Enigma: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ – WSJ
Why Trump’s Quest to Gut Birthright Citizenship Is Doomed – NY Mag
Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man – Experts on Native American law say the Elk v. Wilkins ruling has no bearing on whether the children of immigrants without permanent legal status can be denied birthright citizenship. – NBC News
Experts. What would we do without them?
Elk v. Wilkins quite clearly explained what ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’, the five words at the center of President Trump’s birthright citizenship order mean. The question was whether an American Indian born on a reservation was a citizen. The Supreme Court decided he wasn’t because he wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That phrase in the 14th Amendment made it abundantly clear that its purpose was to naturalize freed black slaves, not random foreigners.
“Though the plaintiff alleges that he “had fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States,” he does not allege that the United States accepted his surrender, or that he has ever been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen by the state or by the United States.”
“But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.”