While we appear to be headed for a judicial showdown on the precises meaning of the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...," I haven't seen any discussion about the real life ramifications about this.
The more I read on the subject, the more I think it likely that the Supreme Court might rule with the Trump administration, despite a few cases here and there in history which have been argued to support the contrary position. While I would be quite glad to see the end of "anchor babies," I am concerned, and I think even the conservatives on the court would be concerned, about this interpretation being applied by the government for the first time, even if it is a correct interpretation of the text and the intent of the authors of the amendment.
Personally, there were kids that I went to school with in my small hometown back in the '70s who were born in the US, but whose parents were Mexican, who have lived here approaching 60 years, always treated as citizens, but who might suddenly become aliens if the court were to simply rule that "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." doesn't include the US-born children of foreign nationals present in the US illegally (or temporarily). These are people whose citizenship has never been questioned for six decades because they can produce birth certificates showing that they were born in the US.
Rather that force us to this cliff, is there any chance that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would define citizenship, either prospectively from adoption, or, better yet, from a relatively recent date certain (say January 1, 2021, just before Biden took office) as being persons born to citizens of the United States, or legal permanent resident aliens?
Personally, I see this being done as part of a package where an Act of Congress reforms the immigration system to rewrite the asylum rules (explicitly barring anyone who enters the US illegally), and provide some narrow pathway for citizenship (for sure, no crimes, perhaps a probationary period to establish self sufficiency through employment) to the people brought to the US as children prior to the date of the proposed amendment, and have that pathway conditioned upon adoption of the proposed amendment (i.e., no relief for "Dreamers" unless anchor babies are eliminated).
The more I read on the subject, the more I think it likely that the Supreme Court might rule with the Trump administration, despite a few cases here and there in history which have been argued to support the contrary position. While I would be quite glad to see the end of "anchor babies," I am concerned, and I think even the conservatives on the court would be concerned, about this interpretation being applied by the government for the first time, even if it is a correct interpretation of the text and the intent of the authors of the amendment.
Personally, there were kids that I went to school with in my small hometown back in the '70s who were born in the US, but whose parents were Mexican, who have lived here approaching 60 years, always treated as citizens, but who might suddenly become aliens if the court were to simply rule that "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." doesn't include the US-born children of foreign nationals present in the US illegally (or temporarily). These are people whose citizenship has never been questioned for six decades because they can produce birth certificates showing that they were born in the US.
Rather that force us to this cliff, is there any chance that a constitutional amendment could be passed which would define citizenship, either prospectively from adoption, or, better yet, from a relatively recent date certain (say January 1, 2021, just before Biden took office) as being persons born to citizens of the United States, or legal permanent resident aliens?
Personally, I see this being done as part of a package where an Act of Congress reforms the immigration system to rewrite the asylum rules (explicitly barring anyone who enters the US illegally), and provide some narrow pathway for citizenship (for sure, no crimes, perhaps a probationary period to establish self sufficiency through employment) to the people brought to the US as children prior to the date of the proposed amendment, and have that pathway conditioned upon adoption of the proposed amendment (i.e., no relief for "Dreamers" unless anchor babies are eliminated).
