A.G. Gancarski
The weather in Florida may be suffused by Arctic chill, but for Gov. Ron DeSantis, constitutional conundrums are red hot.
For the second straight day, the state’s most powerful Republican is revisiting the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
He argued on Wednesday that, contrary to many interpretations of the foundational document, framers had no intent to extend the prerogatives of birthright citizenship to those in the country illegally.
“It is true that both the feds and the states routinely assert jurisdiction over illegal aliens (such as when they are convicted of criminal offenses in American courts) in the ordinary sense of the term — and supporters of illegal alien birthright citizenship will no doubt rely on this fact. But I don’t think that was how the provision was originally understood by the society that ratified the 14th Amendment in the 19th century,” DeSantis said, responding to a social media user named Boutros who questioned his belief that the children of non-citizens born in America are not themselves citizens.
DeSantis believes “that the language ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ represents a term of art and that the original meaning of the phrase did not mandate citizenship for illegal aliens.
The citizenship clause holds that “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.” Yet the position President Donald Trump, DeSantis, and others who believe in immigration restrictions subscribe to is that the children of illegal aliens are not citizens by dint of birth.
Trump’s order says, “The privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States … when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary, and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”
It also claims, “The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
DeSantis argued Tuesday that there may not currently be “five votes on the Supreme Court for the notion that the 14th Amendment does not give birthright citizenship to illegals.”
“If there aren’t five votes then shutting down illegal alien birthright citizenship would require an amendment to the Constitution itself, which would be unlikely to get enacted as blue states would almost certainly refuse to ratify it,” DeSantis noted.
33 comments
ScienceBLVR
January 22, 2025 at 7:36 pm
The other Ron’s take on America as the Shining City on the Hill …And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 2:50 pm
Even for anchor babies? It’s good to see the neo-Marxist New York Times join the Pro-Life movement with its latest headline: “Undocumented Women Ask: Will My Unborn Child Be a Citizen?”
Earl Pitts American
January 22, 2025 at 7:42 pm
Good evening America,
The subject of this article falls 100% in the lap of Don “The Donsld” Trump.
I, Earl Pitts American, fail to grasp “The Dook 4 Brains Leftist Political “Gotcha Thought Process” in which “The Dooks” think they can “Somehow” link “Birthright Citizenship” logically to Ron “The Ronald” Desantis.
Thank you, America,
I, Earl Pitts American call ’em as I, Earl Pitts American, see ’em,
WAKE UP AMERICA,
Earl Pitts American
MH/Duuuval
January 22, 2025 at 8:48 pm
If one is born here, then by the 14A one is a citizen — regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents. This was later tested and upheld by the Supreme Court in a case concerning a Chinese American during a time of intense anti-Chinese sentiment among whites.
Not that the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent should impede any Trump assault on basic rights. And, if birthright citizenship is subverted, Elon Musk can then run for President in 2028.
PeterH
January 22, 2025 at 9:16 pm
Well said MH!
MH/Duuuval
January 22, 2025 at 9:44 pm
It’s like the story of the woman and the snake that Zora Hurston used to tell: During a flood the snake asked the woman for help across the water. She agreed and, once on dry land, the snake bit the woman who asked “Why did you bite me after I saved your life?” The snake answered: “You knew I was a snake when you met me.”
And so Trump told the populace who he was and still a plurality voted for him, which was enough to win and give a serpent multiple opportunities to bite.
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 2:58 pm
What a profound legal argument …
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 2:54 pm
No, Elon cannot. Stop your incoherent nonsense. As for the case of Chinese Americans, you’re mixing apples with oranges: those Chinese Americans entered the United States legally and were “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.
Along for the Ride
January 22, 2025 at 11:10 pm
How many people voted for Trump DeSantis and Rick Scott might actually be deported even though they are American citizens but because their parents weren’t citizens or legally allowed to be here?
Huh
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 3:00 pm
I’m a first-generation American, but my parents came here legally. Find another strawman argument.
Ron Ogden
January 23, 2025 at 6:17 am
DeSantis is correct. The extension of the benefits of birthright citizenship in these cases is analogous to letting children of people who rob banks keep the money. The benefit was gained illegally.
Even in the original intent is far different. The birthright citizenship clause was intended to protect the children of people who were brought here as slaves. But those people were FORCED to be here; there was no onus of choice upon them, nor upon their children.
MH/Duuuval
January 23, 2025 at 10:10 am
The 14A was added to the Constitution to protect and define citizenship of ALL people born in the US — not merely children — especially the formerly enslaved who were being physically assaulted on a daily basis by racist Southern whites.
Few would agree that fleeing to another country to avoid persecution, loss of property, and imminent violence is analogous to robbing a bank and expecting the US Constitution to protect you and your ill-gotten gains.
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 2:57 pm
Read the Congressional record relevant to the 14th Amendment’s ratification. You won’t, but you should.
LA Verda Es La Verdad
January 23, 2025 at 3:10 pm
100% correct. Additionally, Illegals are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. They are not legally here, they most often fly foreign flags, they don’t pay income, Social Security or Medicare taxes, and don’t try to learn the language of the land. (Yo puedo hablar español, soy hispanohiblate tambien.) These all indicated a complete lack of “jurisdiction”.
LA Verda Es La Verdad
January 23, 2025 at 3:10 pm
100% correct. Additionally, Illegals are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. They are not legally here, they most often fly foreign flags, they don’t pay income, Social Security or Medicare taxes, and don’t try to learn the language of the land. These all indicated a complete lack of “jurisdiction”.
MH/Duuuval
January 23, 2025 at 3:23 pm
They DO pay all the state and local taxes and many other levies put on citizens. In Florida, that is 7% sales tax and various fees and tolls.
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 3:02 pm
Do they pay the Marxist federal income tax?
JD
January 23, 2025 at 3:31 pm
Perhaps we should focus on the companies hiring undocumented workers. In Florida, when businesses realized their bottom lines were affected, they backed off and became noticeably quieter about the issue. The same could happen on a national level.
This approach seems designed to “scare” undocumented workers into accepting lower wages, which ironically exacerbates the very concern of “stealing jobs.” Ultimately, it’s a matter of supply, demand, and the dynamics of free labor markets.
This order is all for show and to pander for votes.
MH/Duuuval
January 23, 2025 at 4:02 pm
Mar-a-Lago will be entering high season now, and we can rest assured “the help” which is mostly from the Caribbean will be on duty to take care of the ultra-wealthy’s every whim.
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 3:05 pm
Years ago, America’s Governor signed into law our nation’s strongest anti-illegal-immigration legislation, including E-Verify, etc. You need to do your homework.
LexT
January 23, 2025 at 7:54 am
Which Supreme Court case found that there is “Birth Right Citizenship”? There is not one. The Fourteenth Amendment was about slavery, not citizenship for illegal immigrants. It is silly to create a right accidentally. I’m not saying we don’t figure out a policy of compassion. WHEN we actually close the border, compassion can be on the table. UNTIL the border actually closes, we should not be locked into a policy from a bad interpretation of language meant to free slaves, not benefit families breaking the law.
MH/Duuuval
January 23, 2025 at 10:02 am
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889)
The formerly enslaved had been freed in 1865 by the 13th A by the enormous sacrifices of Black men on the battlefield. 14A was added to the Constitution in 1868 in response to white racist attacks on Southern Blacks, which was followed two years later by a specific amendment to protect their right to vote, hold office, and sit on juries.
KathrynA
January 23, 2025 at 12:39 pm
So many uncaring people here and how many have ancestors that were immigrants? Unless you are native American, maybe we can go back a couple of generations and their descendants should lose birthright citizenship. 3 of my 4 grandparents were immigrants and the only thing to gain admittance through Ellis Island was to prove they weren’t obviously sick. Shoot, maybe right now, I’d rather be sent to Denmark. Sure would beat living in Trump’s America.
LA Verda Es La Verdad
January 23, 2025 at 3:08 pm
Your ancestors followed the law, then wen through the citizenship process illegals aren’t, what’s your point?
KathrynA
January 24, 2025 at 2:09 pm
They had no law really to follow–just to prove they weren’t sick! Millions of our ancestors came this very way and many did not go through Ellis Island. If we start down this road, why is it just the current generation we’re going after? Perhaps we should keep going back and trying to decide who is illegal and who is not. How many of the current people are here because of persecution, violence and starvation? How many went through the legal channels at the border and were awaiting their hearings to validate who had just reason to be here–the backlog was big because Republicans would not give money to appoint immigrantion judges and courts to sufficiently do the job? It’s blatant racisim.
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 3:09 pm
As first-generation American whose parents came to the U.S. legally, can I buy you a one-way ticket? Then again, you may find the Danes welcoming, especially to a delusional leftwing activist. Bye, bye
LA Verda Es La Verdad
January 23, 2025 at 3:06 pm
When you’ve been indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking, as Judge Coughenour has, it’s impossible to look at issues with jurisprudence.
Illegals are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. They are not legally here, they most often fly foreign flags, they don’t pay income, Social Security or Medicare taxes, and don’t try to learn the language of the land. These all indicated a complete lack of “jurisdiction”.
MH/Duuuval
January 23, 2025 at 3:58 pm
Federal immigration law began being generated in 1875 — preceding the opening of Ellis Island. Before Ellis Island there was another way station at Castle Point from the 1850s. Immigration flowed freely until 1924, when white folks tried to keep out “inferior” folks from the Eastern European shtetls and darker Mediterranean types as well as the Black Irish.
This leaves preceding decades or even centuries of free movement unaccounted for by the US government, which did limit the international trade in enslaved Africans after 1808. (This is not to say there wasn’t a customs officer at most ports, but he was looking for goods to tax — not people coming onshore,)
There was more or less unregulated immigration that began in 1492 with the Spanish, followed by the English who in 1619 settled in Virginia. Kings in Europe “authorized” the right of their subjects to take ownership of land and to enslave “bad” indigenous peoples and Africans — and to keep other.Europeans from poaching, especially if they worshipped the Trinity in another manner. (Ft. Caroline and Matanzas ring a bell?)
All that to say, contravening Ron DeSantis, the Indigenous peoples resident in the Americas had their lands stolen from them with few exceptions, most often by violence.
In sum, 99% of land titles in the Americas are illegitimate. Various legalisms don’t alter the basic power dynamic, which is that this hemisphere, especially English colonies, was conceived by Europeans as a white man’s “jurisdiction.”
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 3:11 pm
The 1619 Project, comrade?
MH/Duuuval
January 23, 2025 at 11:33 pm
Illegals are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This piece of legal strategy ought to embarrass anyone pronouncing the phrase.
Think about it: Anyone who comes into Duval County is subject to keeping the peace — or be subject to the powers of arrest and detention authorized by law and temporarily vested in TK Waters.
KathrynA
January 24, 2025 at 2:10 pm
I don’t think anyone would say they are not subject to the juridiction thereof. The majority of immigrants are very hard working, peaceful and tried to live quietly.
MH/Duuuval
January 24, 2025 at 3:20 pm
The phrase has become the mantra of MAGAs focusing on ending birthright citizenship.It’s probably no worse than the preMAGA concept that money = free speech, which the federal courts bought into.
SuzyQ
January 26, 2025 at 3:13 pm
Why are you still here, comrade? I thought you were leaving the U.S. forever, fingers crossed.
Comments are closed.