1147-Birthright Citizenship--And What You Can Do About It

Now first, uh, I'm not surprised by the ruling.

I think that you are also not surprised.

Any thoughtful, uh, intelligent person who considered the case and considered the precedent, I think you had to come to expect this particular decision to be as it is.

The reason I say that is because, A, one, it is perfectly valid to look at the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and extract from that the basic understanding that all children who are born on the soil of the United States are US citizens, regardless of the legal status of their parents.

Re- let me start by j-- a- and also the fact that this has been the common understanding for basically a century, uh, is a, is something that is significant.

Now, should it be that way? That's an entirely different question, but that it is that way is, I think, straightforward.

Let me remind you, uh, as I have done before, that let me just read to you the clear text of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Says, "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." Now, there is a good and robust argument to be had on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I have not read the ninety-one page dissent by Justice Thomas explaining why the current, uh, understanding, the current legal application of that clause is, is wrong.

I have not read that.

But I think most people who are non-lawyers like me, if you just read that, you would say, "Well, that pretty much makes sense, right? 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." Uh, I'm also aware of the arguments about h- what the, the framers of this document meant, what the writers of this amendment, what they, what they spoke and what they talked about.

It was clearly an amendment that was written for a different political problem at a different place in time.

And I think it's quite obvious that the original drafters of this amendment would not have wanted it to be applied in the circumstances that, in the way that it's applied, in the circumstances that we face in the modern era.

I think that is clearly, clearly true.

And I don't think that the Fourteenth Amendment will survive.

Uh, it might take ten or twenty years, but I would be very surprised if twenty years from now we were still in use, that the Fourth-- Fourteenth Amendment were to stand without being modified and amended.

And I say that because that's been the basic trend around the world.

In all of, in most, not quite all, but in most of the clear jus sanguinis, uh, countries.

Jus sanguinis means the right of the soil.

Uh, excuse me, jus soli is the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis means the right of the blood.

So these are the two basic ideas, the ways that the concept of citizenship are applied.

Jus soli means the right of the soil, means that you are given citizenship based upon where you were born, and jus sanguinis means the right of the blood, meaning that you get citizenship based upon who you were born to.

Now, jus soli has always been a, an important component of the New World.

And if you understand that, and you understand why it was an important component of the New World, then it'll, I think, help you to understand why I think I'm right with the fact that this doctrine will not survive very long.

But historically, most of the countries of the New World have had jus soli citizenship, birthright citizenship.

Over the past decades, many of the places that had this form of citizenship have repealed those laws.