The Supreme Court’s decision to consider a case related to birthright citizenship has ignited a contentious debate with potentially profound consequences. This issue centers on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which unequivocally states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Changing this fundamental aspect of American law would be an arduous process, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures—a level of bipartisan consensus virtually unattainable in today’s political landscape.
The controversy stems from the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” through an executive order. The administration argued that children of undocumented immigrants should not automatically be granted citizenship because their parents, allegedly, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
However, this interpretation is legally dubious. Undocumented immigrants are indeed subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The very fact that they can be arrested, detained, charged, convicted, imprisoned, and deported demonstrates the extent to which they are under the purview of U.S. law.
Potential Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling
The 14th Amendment’s wording was deliberate. Its authors sought to prevent a scenario where children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats representing hostile nations could claim American citizenship. Notably, foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity are the only individuals in the United States not fully subject to its jurisdiction. They are only required to follow US laws if their country tells them they have to.
Therefore, if the Supreme Court upholds the previous administration’s executive order, it could inadvertently grant a form of de facto diplomatic immunity to millions of undocumented immigrants. This ruling could also potentially invalidate past legal charges against these individuals.
The timing of this Supreme Court case, coupled with the previous administration’s disregard for a 9-0 ruling instructing them to facilitate the return of Kilmar Bailee Garcia, suggests that the Court’s decision to take up the matter may be intended to send a clear message: attempts to bypass the judicial branch will not be tolerated.