Anthony Michael Kreis, Georgia State University College of Law, Evan D. Bernick, Northern Illinois University College of Law, and Paul A. Gowder, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, have posted Birthright Citizenship and the Dunning School of Unoriginal Meanings, which is forthcoming in Cornell Law Review Online:
This essay critically surveys the recent debate surrounding birthright citizenship in the United States, particularly in light of arguments presented by legal scholars Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman. Under the guise of "originalism," Barnett, Wurman, and others propose an ahistorical, revisionist interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. They suggest that the term "jurisdiction" should be understood as "allegiance," seemingly to give the veneer of legitimacy to the Trump Administration's view that the children of undocumented immigrants may not be American citizens. The essay argues that Barnett and Wurman's approach, which attempts to radically redefine the historical understanding of citizenship, is methodologically flawed and undermines core principles of constitutional law. The critique exposes the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in their position and scrutinizes the scholarly merit of new theories of birthright citizenship that are wildly inconsistent with constitutional text, history, precedent, and unbroken tradition. The essay concludes by examining the professional responsibility of legal scholars to engage in rigorous, fact-based historical analysis rather than politically motivated reinterpretations that threaten to destabilize fundamental constitutional rights.And Kurt Lash, University of Richmond School of Law, has posted Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause:
The current debate over the original meaning of the so-called Birthright Citizenship Clause generally divides over how much weight to give each of the two requirements for birth citizenship. Some scholars emphasize the role of birth on American soil, making it dispositive unless trumped by a limited and closed set of common law “exceptions.” Other scholars claim the second requirement of “jurisdiction” must be given equal and independent weight. For example, some scholars claim there must be independent evidence that one has become “subject” by way of mutual consent or positive allegiance to the American sovereign.
This essay proposes a different and more historically justified way to understand the dual requirements of birth citizenship: Prima facie citizenship. As explained by Attorney General Edward Bates in his influential 1862 Report “On Citizenship,” prima facie citizenship treats birth in the United States as establishing a presumption of citizenship. That presumption may be overcome, however, by positive evidence that the person was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. That requirement involves considerations of familial allegiance to the law-speaking authority of the people of the United States.
This approach solves a number of conundrums unexplained under either of the standard approaches. For example, it explains why children born on the same “invader-occupied” American soil have different citizenships depending on the allegiance of their parents. It also explains why children born to foreign diplomats are not American citizens even if born on the obviously American soil of an American hospital. Finally, and most importantly to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, it explains why children born on American soil to Native American parents who refused to be bound by either the laws of their Tribal Government or the laws of the United States were not considered to have been born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
This last group are most analogous to children born to non-citizen parents who intentionally enter the United States in violation of the law-speaking authority of the sovereign people of the United States. According to the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause, these children were born in the United States, but not in a manner “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This would not be true, however, of children born to parents kidnapped and illegally smuggled into the United States in violation of laws banning the international slave trade.
--Dan Ernst
