Would requiring parental domicile fix the birthright citizenship debate?

[DexWest]

Reaffirm United States v. Wong Kim Ark: birth in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, confers citizenship. But Wong’s holding rested on facts: the parents’ permanent domicile, residence, and subjection to U. S. laws without immunity. See 169 U. S. at 693 (‘domicil and residence… in the United States’). That domicile proved ‘direct and immediate allegiance,’ not mere transit. The Clause’s text, ‘born… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ does not demand parental citizenship, but it presupposes more than temporary presence. History shows Framers rejected British indefeasible allegiance; they meant territorial obedience plus no competing sovereign. Transients, tourists or unlawful entrants, lack that root. Their birth, while on soil we control, does not trigger the full protection/obedience tie Wong required. We narrow no precedent; we apply it faithfully. Effective today: citizenship requires parental domicile. Congress may refine definitions (visa intent, duration), but the executive cannot rewrite via order.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I think the only people upset about birthright citizenship don’t want to or just don’t understand how unamerican it is to say that certain people aren’t allowed to be American because of their parents. The United States is the only place in the world where you can really be part of it. If you, as a Canadian or British person, end up becoming a German citizen, you’re still Canadian. If you become a Chilean citizen, you’re still British. But anyone can be an American, regardless of where you came from. Getting mad at people for not being able to choose where they were born is such an asinine argument.

[msc545]

It would not fix the debate at all. It was not an original condition for birthright citizenship, and that original set of conditions needs to be maintained. You cannot just just change the Constitution whenever it conflicts with your racial beliefs or preferences

[DexWest]

The position that birthright citizenship requires parental domicile does not change the Constitution. It faithfully applies the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and controlling Supreme Court precedent. The Amendment provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court explained that this language applied because the parents had established permanent domicile and residence in the United States and owed direct and immediate allegiance. The Court tied its holding directly to those facts of domicile. See 169 U. S. 649 at 693. Similarly, in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Court held that birth on United States soil does not automatically confer citizenship when full jurisdiction is lacking due to competing allegiance.
This requirement of jurisdiction and domicile reflects the original understanding of the Amendment. The framers rejected unlimited birthright citizenship and demanded complete subjection to United States authority without competing sovereign claims. Requiring parental domicile simply maintains that original condition identified by the Supreme Court itself. It is not motivated by any racial belief or preference. The rule is neutral and applies equally in every case regardless of race or national origin.
That said, I fully believe the Executive Order should be struck down. It opens the very real possibility that the Constitution will not survive if the president can issue executive orders that redefine the Constitution. It is the Constitution and the Supreme Court alone that have the responsibility and authority to interpret the Constitution. The executive branch cannot unilaterally rewrite its meaning through executive order.

[msc545]

I have no way of knowing what the original intention was, nor do I. Fortunately, the current Supreme Court is not going to accept your interpretation of what was meant. Or of what should happen

[NathanDavis]

no, it only creates more issues...

which is exactly why it has been ruled out before... and the current Supreme Court has already said it is most likely to not work... as a solution

[DexWest]

The United States is a constitutional Republic. Our Founders designed a system of limited government under a written Constitution to avoid the failures of monarchy and aristocracy. Faithful interpretation of that document is essential to preserving the Republic they created.
The position on birthright citizenship follows directly from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and controlling Supreme Court precedent. The Amendment declares that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court explained that this language applied to the child of parents who maintained a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and who owed direct allegiance to this country. The Court highlighted those facts of permanent domicile as central to its holding.
By contrast, the Court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) recognized that birth on United States soil alone does not confer citizenship when full jurisdiction is lacking due to competing allegiance.
This interpretation upholds the constitutional order. Article I grants Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization. It prevents any branch from rewriting citizenship policy by fiat. Far from promoting aristocracy, it maintains the sovereignty of the American people in their Republic. True republican government requires that we apply every clause of the Constitution according to its terms and historical meaning.

[NathanDavis]

and your point is... can you tell chatGPT to include one?

[abc3643]

No, because it's insufficient in the real world.

Ideally, there should be a constitutional amendment which clarifies citizenship.

[strateguy632]

Anchor baby is weird. we can't separate them so we must deport the citizen kid, for the purpose of family together.

[exitseven]

It would be staret but it does not address the whole illegal alien /Anchor baby problem which is a huge burden on society

[genericname85]

i mean you can rent a place when you're not a citizen right? i don't see how that fixes it. in fact what if a kid is born to a homeless woman? will that kid then not be a citizen? xD

[Mike_Hum]

They're still citizens. They can still vote.