A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Upon taking office last year, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160 claiming the American-born children of non-citizens (whether legally or illegally present) are not protected under the 14th Amendment because such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Let’s test this hypothesis. A Colombian couple enters NYC under a work visa.
While here, the couple welcomes a boy, Juan Doe, and they decide to go through the years-long citizenship process. At age 3, DOE advises Juan’s parents that they must enroll Juan in some form of school program.
As the citizenship process drags on, Juan is called upon to help out financially. Before mowing lawns to earn extra cash, 14-year-old Juan needs working papers, a Social Security number and must file federal and state tax returns.
At 18, Juan decides on a long-haul trucking career. He must obtain a Commercial Driver’s License and follow all federal motor carrier regulations, including submitting to random alcohol and drug testing.
Meanwhile, in Colombia, men Juan’s age are subject to mandatory military conscription; however he cannot be legally compelled into military service because Juan Doe is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and not “the jurisdiction” of his parents’ native Colombia.
On April fools’ day, Trump and AG Pam Bondi, attended SCOTUS oral arguments on E.O. 14160. The proceedings went so poorly that Bondi was fired by day’s end and Trump angrily posted “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”
Trump must think Israel is beyond stupid – they only require someone be Jewish to gain citizenship, even if they don’t reside in Israel!
Joseph Cannisi
15 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Valete
Joseph Cannisi (AKA reen’ro)
The term ‘work visa’ is ambiguous, rendering your hypothesis invalid. Specifying the type of visa (e.g., H-1B or H2-A) would facilitate a factual debate. Omitting this detail obscures the discussion pertinent to birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship pertains to an individual’s political allegiance and the government’s jurisdiction over them. Based on your hypothetical scenario, Juan Doe does not qualify for birthright citizenship because his parents are under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, regardless of the circumstances.
Summary:
Tourists and illegal aliens who violate our laws are subject to our laws and courts, but they aren’t considered within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
We are among a few countries that grant birthright citizenship, not based on federal law or the Constitution, but on an erroneous executive interpretation. Therefore, birthright citizenship is implemented by executive fiat, not by legal requirement.
Thursday, April 30 Report this
fcannisi
Word Man (AKA the projector), what are ambiguous are your ridiculous comments. Which government an individual's PARENTS are subject to has NO BEARING on their native-born children. Additionally, the 14th Amendment is not open to executive interpretation, the SCOTUS or judicial branch has the sole authority to interpret Constitutional issues.
Any 3rd grader knows that from their civics lessons.
Thursday, April 30 Report this
Valete
In clear English even you can understand, illegals are under the jurisdiction of Mexico, not the US. Thus, their offspring are not US citizens by birth—got it?
Thursday, April 30 Report this
fcannisi
I guess trying to explain a complex issue like why a person born in one country can be a citizen of that country while their child born in a different country can be a citizen of that different country is too difficult for some people to understand.
BTW, Word Man are unauthorized immigrants from Honduras, China and Poland also subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico? You idiot!
Friday, May 1 Report this
Valete
I will reiterate once more that illegal migrants are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, which makes them subject to the authority of a foreign power, you moron!
Friday, May 1 Report this
Valete
Accept tthe fact hat illegals are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and subject to their country of origin. Consequently, their children are not American citizens—estupido!
(If Congress had the cojones, it could solve this matter with one stroke of a pen.)
Friday, May 1 Report this
Valete
Reen’ro (AKA Joseph Cannisi), proven liar,
Cannisi, this is for you, estúpido. The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
"But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual."
The fact that a tourist or "illegal alien" is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
( It is wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.)
"Try to understand this valuable information so that you can avoid embarrassing yourself by repeatedly providing false information and lying about birthright citizenship and numerous other topics."
Saturday, May 2 Report this
Valete
A fleeting thought, as the sole independent on this website, heavily outnumbered by left-wing progressives, you have a slim chance of besting me in any debate, regardless of the subject. Therefore, present your uninspiring thoughts and opinions with the utmost conviction.
Saturday, May 2 Report this
Valete
The majority of undocumented immigrants entering the United States from the Southern border originate from Mexico. Therefore, it is appropriate to point out that undocumented immigrants are under the jurisdiction of Mexico, not the United States, estupido. The other nationals who cross into the US are negligible. Mexico remains the primary source country for the unauthorized border crossings.
During the Biden administration, encounters with Mexican nationals at the U.S. borders reached significant levels. Mexican nationals accounted for the vast majority of all unauthorized border encounters between October 2020 and June 2024, the highest share of any single nationality, so whom do you think will be mostly affected by birthright citizenship? The Anglo Saxons!
Sunday, May 3 Report this
fcannisi
You would think that someone who calls himself "Word Man" would know that the word illegal is an adjective NOT a noun.
The only folks who use the word as a derogatory noun are ignorant racists. However, that is self-evident where Robert Sica/Word Man (the projector) is concerned.
Sunday, May 3 Report this
Valete
Cannisi, you consistently fall for my traps. This time, the bait was the word “ illegals.” One would think that someone who attempts to write about illegal immigration would be aware that in public and political discourse, the term “illegals” is commonly used as a shorthand noun to refer to illegal aliens—individuals who have entered or remained in a country in violation of its immigration laws.
Since you are academically challenged and enjoy making yourself look foolish, I’ll spare you further commentary on the topic of word usage.
Monday, May 4 Report this
Valete
One more point: the only people who resort to the racism card are those who lack intelligence and relevant information to contribute to a debate. (In this case, it’s you know who, Joseph Cannisi (the wimp and the simpleton).
Monday, May 4 Report this
fcannisi
Word Man, your Sica-ning use of the racial slur "illegals" isn't a trap and it isn't a commonly used shorthand noun in respectable society. It's only in common use in MAGA circles, where self-professed devout Christians spew hatred and bile. But, you already know that.
Monday, May 4 Report this
Valete
Reenro
The term “illegals” is a shorthand “noun” used to refer to individuals who have committed illegal immigration. I will continue using it to describe people who immigrated or reside in America without legal documentation, regardless of your personal preferences or opinions.
Monday, May 11 Report this
fcannisi
The N-word was once a shorthand "noun" for Blacks. I'm certain that Word Man/Robert Sica will continue using the vile term "illegals" to refer to undocumented immigrants (who happen to be people of color) because he is indifferent to their feelings.
It is the pain that this dehumanizing term inflicts the undocumented that concerns me, not my "personal preferences or opinions". People who use the term "illegals" as a noun know full well that they do so to demean and belittle other fellow human beings. Shame on them!
Wednesday, May 13 Report this