Trump has proposed changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to limit birthright citizenship

Trump has proposed changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to limit birthright citizenship to children born to individuals legally in the U.S. However, as Brad Bernstein explains, while Trump may attempt to reinterpret laws, the final decision rests with the courts, which could take years to resolve. Brad emphasizes that any such changes would face significant legal challenges before they could be implemented. #14thAmendment #BirthrightCitizenship #ImmigrationLaw #BradBernstein #SparBernstein #KnowYourRights #fypシ

SuperLawyer Brad Bernstein has helped over 100,000 people with their immigration issues throughout his thirty plus year career in immigration law. Many with the most complex and difficult issues.

To contact Brad to help you, call Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein at 1-800-529-5465 (international 1-212-227-8933) or copy and paste the following URL in your broswer,

Brad accepts complex US immigration law cases from all 50 states and around the world.

Brad Is President and Managing Partner of the Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein located at 225 Broadway, 5th Floor, NY, NY 10007.

Prior Successful Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome.

[danmeyer]

Wrong! President-elect Trump doesn't want to change the meaning of “born in the United States, ” but rather he wants to implement the correct and originally intended interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a legal term of art, derived from concepts related to a limited jus soli, and understood by the drafters of the 14th Amendment to have its basis in English common law, which in turn has its basis in Roman law.

Bartolus de Saxoferrato, a 14th-century Italian and one of the first legal scholars to study the Roman concept of the acquisition of citizenship, civilitas civilatis, as deduced from the Corpus Juris Civilis, determined that a Roman citizen by birth, civis ab origine, was one who had been born within the territory of the state and to at least one parent who was already a citizen of the state.

In the earliest known case to articulate jus soli in England, Calvin v. Smith (Calvin’s Case), it was agreed that the statuses of “subject” and “alien” were determined by whether a person was born owing allegiance to the sovereign, as indicated by the Latin phrase ad fidem regis.

Sir Edward Coke, one of the judges deciding Calvin’s Case, extrapolated one exception to jus soli, writing, “But if enemies should come into any of the King’s dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King’s ligeance or obedience. But the time of his birth us of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King.”.

Whether a person at birth is under the ligeance and obedience to the sovereign is not determined by whether his foreign parent is subject to the territorial jurisdiction of prosecution, as any foreign enemy, marauder or bandit, would be subject to the law of the land when captured, but, instead, whether his parent is present in the territory lawfully and permanently, not only voluntarily availing himself to the jurisdiction thereof, but doing so with the consent of the sovereign.

Senator Howard, when proposing language to be included in the 14th Amendment and making reference to English common law exceptions, clarified his intent that citizenship should not be conveyed to everyone born or present in the United States, when he stated, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons”.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being “not subject to any foreign power” and excludes those only temporarily present in the country whether lawfully or unlawfully.

The 14th Amendment’s framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act further clarified that the 14th Amendment did not apply to temporary visitors or those who remained the citizen or subject of a parent’s home country when it stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which would have been redundant if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in the United States, no matter what the circumstances of their birth or parentage.

Since the inception of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has never interpreted the 14th Amendment to extend birthright citizenship to the children of any class of individuals who are not citizens themselves, or lawful permanent residents.

The current granting of automatic birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of the legal residence status of the person's parents, is a MISINTERPRETATION of the Fourteenth Amendment!

[mrahman]

The 14th Amendment sucks. This has to be revised.

[BT-hkco]

You need to learn what Subject to the jurisdiction is. He’s not changing it. It is what it already is. Everyone else ignores its meaning and history.

[Nomad_]

I know a seven month pregnant Indian woman who visited her friend in the US, gave birth to a kid in the US, and returned to India with the kid. Should we treat this kid as a US citizen? Makes no sense. Why should US citizens be liable for such kids?

[simeonapajarillo]

My brother is a us citizenship and had a kid in the Philippines. Now that kid is a us citizenship

[Charlene-yu]

My son was born in Germany. Doesn't make him a citizen pf Germany.

[mrahman]

While he can stop issuing passports, which is the main proof of citizenship of an individual everywhere.

[ashisharora]

It’s good for America, they should protect their rights .

[OldAndInTheWay-kw]

Everyone please read the 14th amendment...

[FlowerPow-tzcn]

So wait, we can get around the 14th amendment but not the 2nd amendment. So the constitution actually can be interpreted and changed when they see fit. Enough said!!!

[anthonylespierre]

If you are born in America you are a citizen .that is that😊

[garyvanheest]

I agree with Trump and no the Supreme Court will decide in his favor in months

[nikosnikos]

It is the right move, and needed. And this comes from a former immigration professional. Being born in a country means nothing if the parents are not already citizens or at least legal immigrants to that country.

[miranda]

I know people that have kids that were born here and they are both undocumented, and they get all the benefits Medicaid, snap and low cost housing just because of the kids that were born here, my niece needs medical care and my sister cannot afford it, sucks but true

[maynardjohnson]

Yeah but if the judges are installed by trump, what good is it?

[luznancypinilla]

He is correct in Spain you are not a citizen if you are born there if your parents aren’t Spanish citizens!

[tombanks]

Once upon a time, a former slave made a case to the Supreme Court, and they said he wasn't American. So, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed to address that issue.

The Wong Kim Ark case, which went to the Supreme Court, was a different issue, as his parents were legal residents.

However, the issue of children born to illegal immigrants was truly left unsettled by the Supreme Court.

[tonybarnes]

Well let’s go to court now and start the proceedings.
13 and 14th Amendment of the constitution needs to be cleared UP.. Who are they talking about????

[patriciamauriciakabongolem]

Thank you for enlightening people in these dire times.

[smarchese]

Is birth tourism legal..?
I came across 2 Instagram accts and printed newspaper advertisements for agencies offering n encouraging women from Turkey to give birth in the US for a $20, 000. US fee. In these posts, they advise women to lie to customs / border agents at airport entry, so how can this possibly be legal..?