In a recent opinion piece, the author dismantles Stephen Miller's arguments against birthright citizenship, reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of the 14th Amendment. The piece argues that Miller's claims are historically inaccurate and legally unsound.
Historical Context of Birthright Citizenship
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. This clause was intended to overturn the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to African Americans. The author notes that the amendment's framers explicitly included children of immigrants, as evidenced by the Congressional debates of the time.
According to legal historian Eric Foner, the amendment's language was deliberately broad. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude only foreign diplomats, invading armies, and Native Americans living under tribal sovereignty—not children of undocumented immigrants. This interpretation has been upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that children born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents were citizens.
Debunking Miller's Revisionist History
Stephen Miller, a former White House adviser, has argued that birthright citizenship is not mandated by the 14th Amendment and that Congress could end it through legislation. The author counters that this view contradicts over a century of legal precedent and the original intent of the amendment. The author emphasizes that the 14th Amendment was designed to be self-executing, meaning no additional legislation is needed to confer citizenship.
The piece quotes constitutional scholar Garrett Epps, who states: "The idea that the 14th Amendment doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship is a fringe theory with no basis in law or history." Epps further notes that even conservative justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have not questioned the validity of Wong Kim Ark.
Political and Social Implications
The author warns that ending birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of people born in the U.S. but denied citizenship, undermining the nation's core values. It would also lead to bureaucratic chaos, as millions of Americans would need to prove their ancestors' legal status at birth. The piece cites a 2019 study by the Cato Institute, which estimated that over 5 million U.S. citizens could be affected if birthright citizenship were repealed retroactively.
The author concludes that Miller's arguments are not about constitutional interpretation but about promoting nativist policies. The 14th Amendment remains a cornerstone of American democracy, ensuring that all who are born on U.S. soil are equal citizens.
