Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution
Reader letters debate the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause and executive power to change naturalization rules.
本文刊登了多位读者围绕第十四修正案中"出生公民权"条款的来信讨论。有读者支持特朗普废除出生公民权的立场，认为该制度已被广泛滥用，不符合当代美国利益。另一位读者则从宪法原旨主义角度分析了"受其管辖"这一关键措辞的含义，并指出即使出生公民权条款的解释存在争议，总统也无权通过行政命令改变归化规则，因为这一权力属于国会。
I read with great interest Randy E. Barnett's op-ed "Trump Is Right on Birthright Citizenship" (April 1). The 14th Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the functional equivalent of the Second Amendment's phrase "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." The Supreme Court justices will now dissect the language and issue a decision.
Whatever one thinks about the Supreme Court and the language of the 14th Amendment, there can be no real doubt that birthright citizenship is widely abused, a 19th-century concept that is greatly harming 21st-century America. Does anyone truly believe that Chinese birth tourism to Guam is what the Founders intended?
I hope that the Supreme Court will rule against birthright citizenship, but if it doesn't, this isn't the final word. The Constitution can and should, in the appropriate circumstances, be amended, and this is certainly such an instance. Regrettably, America is so divided that the difficult process of amending the Constitution is a nonstarter.
Michael G.
In discussing the 14th Amendment, Mr. Barnett fairly shows that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" isn't empty surplusage. However, one can't help but wonder how its public meaning in 1868 (when the amendment was ratified) excludes children born to unlawful or temporary residents, or how legislative remarks about diplomats and tribal allegiance map neatly onto modern immigration categories.
As the late Justice Antonin Scalia stressed, legislative floor explanations are weak evidence for the core originalist question: How would a contemporary informed reader interpret the words as enacted?
It seems plainly logical that diplomats, tribal members and invading armies are of a distinct sovereignty and not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Likewise, a visa overstay isn't a foreign mission.
Even if Mr. Barnett's argument is correct, President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship would still be unlawful. Mr. Trump has no power to change the rules of naturalization via executive order. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution says it is Congress that has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." If Mr. Trump is correct about the Citizenship Clause's original meaning, he has still usurped Congress's prerogative. It's Liberation Day all over again.