The United States is one of only a handful of nations with birthright citizenship, but the Supreme Court may bring the scheme to an end when it rules in Trump v. Barbara.
The key phrase in this important court case is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Of course you are subject to local laws wherever you go. If you jaywalk in Norway or Nicaragua, you are subject to whatever penalties those sovereignties may impose. But does that really cover "jurisdiction" in the broader sense?
Consider this example. I'm born in Honduras. I have a Honduran passport and driver's license. I can vote as a Honduran. If required, I can be drafted into the armed forces and must serve. I am required to pay taxes to the Honduran government as required. I am recognized internationally as a Honduran and any international agreements that govern Hondurans apply to me. I now cross the border into the U.S. Yes, I can be sanctioned for jaywalking, but how on earth am I otherwise subject to jurisdiction of the United States?
The definition of "jurisdiction" from Oxford: "the authority that an official organization has to make legal decisions about someone or something."
The 14th Amendment was written to ensure full rights for former slaves (its proper execution took some time thereafter). Its writers did not anticipate or intend an international free for all. Otherwise they would've just said "born in the U.S.", period. That's why they added "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Given the position of 14Ain the center of the 3 Amendments affording freedom to the recently Emancipated slaves and their offspring, Our Constitution is making this clear that it was written for the newly freed slaves. Additionally, the USA at its birth had adopted the citizenship laws of a Monarchy, from which we had separated. All persons born in a monarchy were subject to the jurisdiction of the king. The 14th Amendment was written for the Republic we were, with language suitable. Since we had no King, the Amendment had to address jurisdiction.
Interesting take, Michelle. Maybe you're onto something. It's notable that, if we were copying the birthright citizenship laws of the British Monarchy, we may have missed something. While the monarchy continues there, there is no automatic birthright citizenship in the U.K.
What was necessary was “subject to the jurisdiction of the King from birth on the soil”. My guess is it wasn’t written law which began in later centuries.
I heard this argued by the Solicitor General, John Sauer, as his last rebuttal for the oral arguments. The need for the clause “subject to (___) became clear because we will never have a monarch that those born here will be subject to. But we will always have jurisdiction.
"Currently, only about 30 nations have adopted birthright citizenship, and most are in the Americas"
Important missing context for this statement: there are 193 countries recognized by the UN, two observer states and about 50 disputed territories (like Taiwan, Somaliland, etc.). Assuming 195 countries, then 30 = 15.38% of countries, or if 245 then it is 12.24%.
Either way, more than six times as many countries do not have it as those that do.
With that said, other countries' laws don't apply in the US.
Your comment reminds me of the way people accuse Israel of being an apartheid country...based on the fact that Israel grants different rights to citizens and non-citizens (sort of like 100% of the other countries in the world).
I don't think enough people in the US are paying attention to this case. The wars in the Middle East, the economy, and every mis-step of the Trump administration garners far more attention. If "legacy media" is covering, their coverage indicates why they are increasingly "legacy".
No administration is perfect. The recent excesses of the secretaries of Homeland Security and Labor are clear exsmples. More experienced executives would not have allowed their personal lives to become so publicly entangled with their work. Some would argue that the actions of ICE have been "heavy handed" and "disproportionately violent". On that I withhold judgment.
Good, balanced response. What I fear is that the liberal members of the Court will pull the centrists in their direction. The context in 1898 of “subject to jurisdiction of” in light of the fourteenth amendment was different.
Not gained, given. Every generation receives the accomplishments of the preceding generation "free of charge", if you will. However, they also receive the previous generation's failures.
"A child born outside the United States may also be a citizen if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen"
My wife was a US citizen when our first child was born in the UK (where I am a citizen). We were told that he could not have US citizenship because we were married. If we had not been married he could have. Sounded crazy to us then and just as crazy now.
Still birthright citizenship for illegal or temporary visitors etc is also bonkers.
Looks as if advice we got after birth was correct. Online search says "For a child born in the UK to a U.S.-citizen mother (born in the U.S.) and UK father, if the child was born after 14 Nov 1986 and the parents were married, the mother normally needed:
5 years of physical presence in the U.S. before the child’s birth, and
I am a Bermudian. That’s a British Overseas Territory Citizen. I have two passports, UK and Bermuda.
My wife is a US citizen and was naturalized as a Bermudian after ten years of marriage. She has two passports, US and Bermuda. She is eligible for a full UK passport also, but has yet to apply as there isn’t a compelling reason yet.
Our daughter has three passports, US, UK, Bermuda. Citizen of all three, no issues. Would not have mattered where she was born, she was innately eligible for all of them.
Seems fundamental: who is a citizen. Matters way more than rights because it creates the social structure of a polity. It creates relationships - and relationships is what life is about. Two entities - a trusting and integral relationship depends on transparent identity.
Why should non-Muslims try to understand Islam? Does it matter?
Let me start by saying: "Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam] are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission, under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
The key phrase in this important court case is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Of course you are subject to local laws wherever you go. If you jaywalk in Norway or Nicaragua, you are subject to whatever penalties those sovereignties may impose. But does that really cover "jurisdiction" in the broader sense?
Consider this example. I'm born in Honduras. I have a Honduran passport and driver's license. I can vote as a Honduran. If required, I can be drafted into the armed forces and must serve. I am required to pay taxes to the Honduran government as required. I am recognized internationally as a Honduran and any international agreements that govern Hondurans apply to me. I now cross the border into the U.S. Yes, I can be sanctioned for jaywalking, but how on earth am I otherwise subject to jurisdiction of the United States?
The definition of "jurisdiction" from Oxford: "the authority that an official organization has to make legal decisions about someone or something."
The 14th Amendment was written to ensure full rights for former slaves (its proper execution took some time thereafter). Its writers did not anticipate or intend an international free for all. Otherwise they would've just said "born in the U.S.", period. That's why they added "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Given the position of 14Ain the center of the 3 Amendments affording freedom to the recently Emancipated slaves and their offspring, Our Constitution is making this clear that it was written for the newly freed slaves. Additionally, the USA at its birth had adopted the citizenship laws of a Monarchy, from which we had separated. All persons born in a monarchy were subject to the jurisdiction of the king. The 14th Amendment was written for the Republic we were, with language suitable. Since we had no King, the Amendment had to address jurisdiction.
Interesting take, Michelle. Maybe you're onto something. It's notable that, if we were copying the birthright citizenship laws of the British Monarchy, we may have missed something. While the monarchy continues there, there is no automatic birthright citizenship in the U.K.
What was necessary was “subject to the jurisdiction of the King from birth on the soil”. My guess is it wasn’t written law which began in later centuries.
Well, it proves to be an interesting case. We’ll see what happens.
I heard this argued by the Solicitor General, John Sauer, as his last rebuttal for the oral arguments. The need for the clause “subject to (___) became clear because we will never have a monarch that those born here will be subject to. But we will always have jurisdiction.
"Currently, only about 30 nations have adopted birthright citizenship, and most are in the Americas"
Important missing context for this statement: there are 193 countries recognized by the UN, two observer states and about 50 disputed territories (like Taiwan, Somaliland, etc.). Assuming 195 countries, then 30 = 15.38% of countries, or if 245 then it is 12.24%.
Either way, more than six times as many countries do not have it as those that do.
With that said, other countries' laws don't apply in the US.
Your comment reminds me of the way people accuse Israel of being an apartheid country...based on the fact that Israel grants different rights to citizens and non-citizens (sort of like 100% of the other countries in the world).
I don't think enough people in the US are paying attention to this case. The wars in the Middle East, the economy, and every mis-step of the Trump administration garners far more attention. If "legacy media" is covering, their coverage indicates why they are increasingly "legacy".
What do you mean by 'mis-steps'?
No administration is perfect. The recent excesses of the secretaries of Homeland Security and Labor are clear exsmples. More experienced executives would not have allowed their personal lives to become so publicly entangled with their work. Some would argue that the actions of ICE have been "heavy handed" and "disproportionately violent". On that I withhold judgment.
Good, balanced response. What I fear is that the liberal members of the Court will pull the centrists in their direction. The context in 1898 of “subject to jurisdiction of” in light of the fourteenth amendment was different.
I did observe quick, appropriate responses. to the above.
When something is gained so cheaply, it has little or no value. This, in part, contributes to the demise of our culture.
Not gained, given. Every generation receives the accomplishments of the preceding generation "free of charge", if you will. However, they also receive the previous generation's failures.
"A child born outside the United States may also be a citizen if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen"
My wife was a US citizen when our first child was born in the UK (where I am a citizen). We were told that he could not have US citizenship because we were married. If we had not been married he could have. Sounded crazy to us then and just as crazy now.
Still birthright citizenship for illegal or temporary visitors etc is also bonkers.
Same situation, different outcome. My wife simply went to the US consulate to register our child. No restrictions either way.
Interesting, thanks. So maybe mine should/could have US citizenship. Or maybe yours shouldn't 🤔
My daughter is American, her husband English, and they live in England. Their two daughters both have duel citizenship. I have no idea how that works.
Looks as if advice we got after birth was correct. Online search says "For a child born in the UK to a U.S.-citizen mother (born in the U.S.) and UK father, if the child was born after 14 Nov 1986 and the parents were married, the mother normally needed:
5 years of physical presence in the U.S. before the child’s birth, and
2 of those years after age 14."
Wife does not meet those requirements.
That’s a great explanation which shows why my wife was eligible
I am a Bermudian. That’s a British Overseas Territory Citizen. I have two passports, UK and Bermuda.
My wife is a US citizen and was naturalized as a Bermudian after ten years of marriage. She has two passports, US and Bermuda. She is eligible for a full UK passport also, but has yet to apply as there isn’t a compelling reason yet.
Our daughter has three passports, US, UK, Bermuda. Citizen of all three, no issues. Would not have mattered where she was born, she was innately eligible for all of them.
Thanks. Children born in the UK?
Yes.
Yours can up until adulthood at least. The US has made allowances even for the grandchildren of US citizens to apply.
Whether it’s in his best interest is another thing.
Seems fundamental: who is a citizen. Matters way more than rights because it creates the social structure of a polity. It creates relationships - and relationships is what life is about. Two entities - a trusting and integral relationship depends on transparent identity.
Why should non-Muslims try to understand Islam? Does it matter?
Let me start by saying: "Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam] are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission, under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
That is what my work is about.
I’m intrigued by Robert Heinlein’s idea of earning citizenship.