Sen. Paul Introduces Birthright Citizenship Amendment
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Constitution Day event at James Madison University about "Rage and the Republic." and various constitutional issues. During the event, organized by the James Madison Center on Civic Engagement, one student asked me what I would change about the U.S. Constitution. I said that I would amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, as have other nations who once followed this ill-considered practice. Well, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kentucky) has wasted no time. He just reintroduced his bill to ban birthright citizenship.
I have previously written about the possible need for such an amendment after the decision in Trump v. Barbara.
With that decision, the matter now rests not with the court but with the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts.
Most countries in the world reject this controversial policy. Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizenship and follow the common practice of "jus sanguinis," or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following "jus soli," or right of soil.
Various countries that once followed the practice later amended their constitutions or laws to get rid of it. That is what would need to be done with a 28th amendment.
It is time that we have a civil and substantive debate over birthright citizenship in the United States. Given that the states are Democratic-controlled, it is unlikely that an amendment would pass; as noted, we have never been given this decision at the national level. Even with the 14th Amendment's ratification in 1868, there were differing views on the meaning of the critical line: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Both sides have good-faith arguments, but the time for that debate is long overdue.
Here is the language of the amendment:
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect United States citizenship.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
"article -
"Section 1. For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person may be considered to be 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' only in accordance with section 2.
"Section 2. A person born in the United States may only be considered 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is -
"(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
"(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
"(3) an alien with lawful status under the immigration laws performing active service in the Armed Forces.
"Section 3. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation."