Maverick Philosopher

Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Robert Kuttner, in a piece entitled Supreme Contempt for the Constitution, writes,

The Supreme Court issued a shocking ruling today, making it easier for President Donald Trump to overturn birthright citizenship. The way the Court did it was in keeping with its disingenuous strategy of using technicalities that allow it to duck the underlying question.

The substance of Friday’s 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, involved a challenge to Trump’s executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. His order violated the 14th Amendment, which clearly holds that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of the circumstances.

This Kuttner is obviously a leftist ideologue. 14A does not "clearly hold" what Kuttner says it "clearly holds." Section 1 begins:

14A. 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.

The meaning of the amendment depends on how the clause I have set in italics is interpreted. Such interpretation is the office of SCOTUS the function of which is neither legislative nor executive. Its function is judicial.  Here is how  Stephen Miller and others read 14A.:

Let's talk about birthright citizenship. After the Civil War, Congress and America came together to ensure freedom for the children of slaves, not the children of illegal aliens . . . .

If you go to the UN today, the United Nations, [which is located in New York City] you have diplomats from all over the world. None of their babies become automatic American citizens. Why? 

Because they're [the diplomats are] subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country. Their allegiance is to a foreign country. Their citizenship is to a foreign country.

Illegal aliens are no different, in fact, worse, because illegal aliens are expressly forbidden from even being on our soil. Their allegiance is to a foreign land. They're under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.

Their children are not U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court has now cleared the way for us to restore the actual meaning of the United States Constitution and the idea that this special privilege does not belong to illegal aliens and their children. 

The interpretation of 14A depends on  who the referents are of the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Miller quite naturally takes the referents to be the parents of the illegal aliens.   Thus Miller et al. take 14A to be expressing the more explicit:

14A*. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and WHOSE PARENTS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

On this reading birthright citizenship is ruled out. The actual formulation in the Constitution, however, is 14A.  The trouble is that  the actual formulation allows the following reading:

14A**. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, whether or not their parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

14A** is ruled out by the points Miller makes, one of them being that the children of foreign diplomats born to these diplomats while they are in the USA do not automatically become U.S. citizens.

I have made two main points. The first is that Kuttner is either bullshitting or lying when he claims that the meaning of 14A in its actual formulation in the Constitution is transparently clear. No, it NOT clear.

Second, and more importantly, the most plausible reading, is 14A* above, and NOT Kuttner's perverse hate-America leftist reading.

Posted

in

,

by

Bill Vallicella

Tags:

Comments

12 responses to “Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment”

  1. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    A reading of the Senate debates in May and June of 1866 on the 14th Amendment, reveal beyond a doubt that 14A* is the only understanding of the amendment that conforms to the intentions of those who created it. Leftist ideologues such as Kuttner, who engage, as you point out, in “lying or bullshitting” will find that the record of this debate runs counter to their fallacious claims, so they will, as with all things historical not of their liking, ignore or distort it. But the record is clear that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood to exclude the children of various categories of parents not meeting this criterion, such as foreign ambassadors, aliens, and members of the Indian tribes. The following excerpts from the debate demonstrate this fact:
    Mr. FESSENDEN [Willian P. Fessenden, Republican Senator from Maine]. Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country.
    Mr. WADE [Benjamin Wade, Republican Senator from Ohio]. The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their 19 children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington. * (p.19)
    Mr. HOWARD [Jacob M. Howard, Republican Senator from Michigan]. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (p.41)
    Mr. JOHNSON [Reverdy Johnson, Democratic Senator from Maryland]. Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power— for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us — shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. (p.47)
    Mr. HOWARD [Jacob M. Howard, Republican Senator from Michigan], Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction. That question has long since been adjudicated, so far as the usage of the Government is concerned. The Government of the United States have always regarded and treated the Indian tribes within our limits as foreign Powers. (p.52).
    Mr. WILLIAMS[George Henry Williams, Republican Senator from Oregon], In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. … I understand the words here, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (p. 56)
    Vito
    *https://ia801508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf

    Reply
  2. Bill V Avatar
    Bill V

    Vito,
    Thank you for the historical documentation. The topic suggest various collateral topics. I’ll mention just one now.
    Consider those in the RCC who want to remake it in their own leftist image and likeness. Bergoglio was a prime example. Although there is such a thing as development of doctrine, those entrusted with the preservation of the depositum fidei are not free to ‘liberalize’ it. The trad doctrine is what it is. It is admittedly bristling with difficulties. Those who reject the trad RCC doctrine are free to leave the RCC. They are not, however, entitled to remake it to their liking any more that those in the military are entitled to ‘wokify it.’ No one with pacifist inclinations should join the military in the first place, the fighting units of which exist to KILL the combatants on the other side, in certain circumstances.
    You and I, Vito, would probably say something similarly about the USA as she was founded to be: either respect the Constitution and the other founding documents or go live elsewhere. Our political enemies have no right to “fundamentally transform” the USA as per Obama’s intention and the intentions of leftists before and after him.

    Reply
  3. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    I agree with everything that you say in your response to my comment.
    With regard to the RCC, the elevation into positions of authority of men who are open enemies of the Deposit of Faith continues under Provost, the smiling more rhetorically subtle, traditionally vested version of Bergoglio, the mafioso who raised him up and had him in mind as a successor. Yesterday, Chris Jackson published a short article on his blog* about the recent conferral of the pallium on a heretical, scandal ridden prelate, McElroy, and a vicious enemy of the Mass of the Ages and tradition in general, Weisenburger. The gauchistes and their enablers are everywhere in the institution, from the universities, the historic societies and orders, the episcopate, and the Curia, and, as you say, they will not stop until they have completely remade it “in their own leftist image and likeness.” Too many “conservative” Catholics are blinded by the change in form to take note of the continuity of substance.
    *https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/leo-xiv-rewards-latin-mass-persecutor
    Vito

    Reply
  4. BV Avatar
    BV

    Thanks for the link, Vito. Forgive my pedantry, but you wrote ‘Provost’ above when you meant ‘Prevost.’

    Reply
  5. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill.
    Yes, I know. I found the error after sending the comment.
    Vito

    Reply
  6. BV Avatar
    BV

    An excerpt from the Substack article:
    >>Archbishop Weisenburger, appointed in February 2025, made headlines earlier this year by implementing one of the harshest applications of Traditionis Custodes in the world. His decree banned ad orientem worship, kneeling for Communion in the Novus Ordo, and ended nearly every diocesan Latin Mass, even outside of parishes.
    The document, hastily removed from the archdiocesan website after public backlash, revealed an agenda not just of suppression but humiliation. Priests wishing to say the TLM had to write letters begging for permission, swearing fidelity to Vatican II and promising not to allow any lay faithful to attend.<< An instance of the humiliation, as I have pointed out a couple of times before, consists in the mocking use of Latin phrases such as novus ordo to get rid of the Latin mass.
    I suppose the humiliation also resides in the keeping of the trappings (pallium, etc.) while dropping the doctrine.
    Do we really need more leftist claptrap?
    A little pun: trappings-claptrap. There is also the question of the faggotry now tolerated in the RCC as a motive for keeping all the fancy vestments while dripping the doctrine. Homosexuals like to dress up.

    Reply
  7. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    I do not wish to prolong this thread unnecessarily, but I thought that you would find this of interest. Thanks to the skillful reporting of Diane Montagna, who covers the Vatican, we now have the official documents that prove what was suspected back in 2021 when Traditionis Custodes, which overturned Benedict XVI Summorum Pontificum and began the suppression of the TLM: Bergoglio and his gang, including the despicable Card. Roche, all lied to justify this brutal act.
    Here is Peter Kwasniewski on her findings:
    “The previously undisclosed text, which forms a crucial part of the official report by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on its 2020 consultation of bishops concerning Summorum Pontificum, reveals that ‘the majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.’”
    The overall assessment directly contradicts, therefore, the stated rationale for imposing Traditionis Custodes and raises serious questions about its credibility” (https://x.com/DrKwasniewski/status/1940131743014465653).
    And here is Montagna’s Substack article on the documents: https://dianemontagna.substack.com/p/exclusive-official-vatican-report
    One more big lie of the Left!
    Vito

    Reply
  8. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    Jackson says it well this morning: “Traditionis Custodes was never about abuse, unity, or peace. It was about power. It was about reasserting the postconciliar project at the precise moment when its credibility was collapsing. It was about reminding the faithful that ‘reform’ means rupture, and obedience means forgetfulness.
    It was not a pastoral decision. It was a pastoral lie.”*
    So, here we have the ecclesial version of the Democrat’s “Our Democracy” lie, which seeks to destroy the very institution, the Republic, by shredding the Constitution and marginalizing or worse those who actually seek to defend it.
    This is not just a Church matter. Rather, what happened to the RCC under the heretical Bergoglio after 2013 must be seen as one front in the aggressive political and cultural offensive of the global left to overturn the remaining defenses of Western civilization (the RCC, the nation state, secure borders, the rule of law, historical memory, and so on).
    *https://bigmodernism.substack.com/
    Vito

    Reply
  9. BV Avatar
    BV

    Vito,
    Thanks for helping me fill in the gaps in my understanding of my own tradition. This from https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html
    >>In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII. Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it.
    [. . .]
    Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.
    It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. [. . .]<< I have the 1962 missal that a half-brother gave me on the occasion of my Confirmation, 8 December 1963. I'll bet you have the '62 missal as well. Why would Bergoglio and his gang want to change SUM PONT? What was their motivation? After all, SUM PONT allows for the reforms (if you want to call them that) of Vatican II.

    Reply
  10. BV Avatar
    BV

    Vito,
    I agree with what you say @3:49. The ecclesial-political parallel is close. The global Left, as you say, is out to destroy the remaining bulwarks of Western civilization. But again, what are their motives? What explains their destructiveness? The destructiveness of a Bergoglio or a Mayorkas? They seem like decent people! How many of them really believe that thy are doing something good? Do we need a demonological explanation?
    The erasure of the historical record is a large part of the anti-civilizational assault. One form it has taken is the destruction of monuments to worthy individuals, and the erection of memorials to worthless individuals such as George Floyd. By any secular standard, he is a worthless individual. Now if a God of love presides over this scene of strife, then we are all equally worthy and unworthy in his eyes. But leftists don’t believe in anything beyond the secular. They use our beliefs against us. Yet another proof of their scumbaggery.

    Reply
  11. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Bill,
    I also have the 1962 missal and take it with me each Sunday to the TLM.
    As to why Bergoglio and his gang want to change SUM PONT, since it “allows for the reforms (if you want to call them that) of Vatican II, I believe that they regard any compromise with the traditional liturgy, either by permitting the TLM or by making the NO more reverent by drawing inspiration from it–Benedict XVI’s famous “reform of the reform”– as an obstacle in the realization of the modernist objective, pursued since the late 19th century, of “reconciling” Catholicism with the modern world. Such a reconciliation rests on a historicist understanding of truth, with the Church required to update (John XXIII’s aggiornamento) not merely its teachings (doctrines) but also its liturgy to meet the needs of contemporary society. I think that this blind faith that what passes for truth in the present is not simply superior to what was believed in the past but also the gateway to a more glorious future drives all these progressive projects, whether secular or religious. The TLM, both in its form—its fixed rubrics—and non-vernacular, ancient language, and in the immutable orthodox theology that it expresses constitutes a concrete obstacle to this vision and objective, not only because of its growing, although still very modest, popularity, but also because it is the concrete expression of what Catholicism really is, a religion that is wedded to revealed, given truths (dogmas) the full understanding of which occurs only through a slow and cautious process of corporate reflection (development of doctrine).
    Vito

    Reply
  12. Vito B. Caiati Avatar
    Vito B. Caiati

    Of course, the modernist understanding of what contemporary man religiously requires is predetermined by the ideological assumptions of the elites who have advanced this program in the Church. Very few Catholics asked for or anticipated or even welcomed the 1970 NO, but Paul VI, along with Bugnini and the “experts” who Protestantized the Mass simply imposed it from above, going far beyond what was envisioned by the Council.
    Vito

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *