- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I asked Grok to make an argument against birth right citizenship
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:07 pm
Go ahead PT legal minds, have at it!
Grok:
Grok:
quote:
If you were to present a case to demonstrate birth right citizenship is not constitutional, what would be ur argument?
The strongest constitutional case against unconditional "birthright citizenship" (automatic jus soli citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status) rests on the plain text, original public meaning, and legislative history of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause. It does not say "all persons born in the United States are citizens." It 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."
The qualifier "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not surplusage. It was deliberately added to limit citizenship to those under the complete political jurisdiction of the United States—not merely physically present on the soil. This excludes people (and their minor children) who owe primary allegiance to a foreign sovereign, such as diplomats, invading armies, members of Indian tribes not fully integrated, or—by the same logic—illegal aliens who enter in violation of U.S. law and remain subject to deportation.1. Text and Structure: "Jurisdiction" Means Complete, Political Jurisdiction—Not Mere Territorial Presence"Jurisdiction" in 1868 legal usage (and today) referred to full authority to prescribe and enforce laws and demand permanent allegiance. Temporary or partial subjection (e.g., tourists obeying traffic laws while here, or illegal entrants evading immigration enforcement) does not qualify.
The clause was modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which Congress passed months earlier: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens..."
constitution.congress.gov +1
The 14th Amendment's phrasing change ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") was not meant to expand citizenship but to constitutionalize the 1866 Act while fixing drafting issues around Indians. It retained the core requirement: no foreign allegiance.
congress.gov
If the Framers wanted pure soil-based citizenship, they could have omitted the jurisdiction phrase entirely. They didn't.2. Original Public Meaning from the Congressional Debates (1866–1868)The drafters explained exactly what they meant:Senator Jacob M. Howard (Michigan), who introduced the Citizenship Clause:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already... This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
theusconstitution.org +1
Howard's language explicitly carves out "foreigners [and] aliens." Grammatical debates exist, but the point was clear: birth alone was not enough if the parents owed allegiance elsewhere.
Senator Lyman Trumbull (Illinois), Judiciary Committee chair and author of the 1866 Act:
"What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means... 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'"
supremecourt.gov
Trumbull emphasized complete jurisdiction and lack of foreign allegiance. Illegal entrants and their children fail this test: the parents remain citizens of another country, subject to removal, and the child typically inherits foreign citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis).
The debates focused on freed slaves (who owed no foreign allegiance). No one suggested it would automatically citizenship children of foreigners who were merely passing through or violating immigration laws. Opponents even worried it might include Chinese or Gypsy immigrants' children—but the majority still tied citizenship to full U.S. jurisdiction.
acslaw.org
3. Precedent Distinguishes Legal Domicile from Illegal PresenceUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the leading case, but it supports the limited reading. The Court held that a child born to legal, domiciled Chinese immigrant parents (who were not diplomats and had established permanent residence) was a citizen. The opinion repeatedly stressed the parents' lawful domicile and business activities under U.S. authority.
en.wikipedia.org +1
Wong Kim Ark never addressed illegal aliens. The parents were lawfully present and not subject to deportation. Later cases (e.g., Chin Bak Kan v. United States, 1902) reinforced that Wong's holding turned on lawful domicile.
supremecourt.gov
Illegal aliens are not "domiciled" in the legal sense—they are here in defiance of U.S. sovereign authority and can be removed at any time. Their children are not under the complete jurisdiction the Framers required.4. Broader Context: This Was Never About Encouraging Illegal ImmigrationIn 1868, there was no federal immigration code or "illegal alien" problem as we know it. The clause fixed Dred Scott's denial of citizenship to freed slaves. Modern mass illegal immigration + automatic citizenship creates "anchor babies" as a policy incentive the Framers never contemplated.
The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled that children of illegal aliens get 14th Amendment citizenship. Lower courts and executive practice have assumed it, but that is policy, not constitutional mandate. Congress could end it by statute (clarifying "jurisdiction"); an amendment is unnecessary if the original understanding controls.
Bottom line: The Constitution guarantees citizenship by birth to those fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction—primarily the children of citizens and lawful permanent residents. It does not require automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens or temporary visitors who retain foreign allegiance. The broad modern practice is a judicial/policy gloss, not the original constitutional command. Ending it would restore the 14th Amendment's actual text and meaning.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 12:08 pm
8
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:10 pm to lake chuck fan
I learned yesterday that AI completely fabricated a new species of fox in North America. It created literature and research about the fox, invented researchers and scientists who studied it, and created non-scholarly articles written about the fox.
It was actually quite amazing.
It was actually quite amazing.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:20 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Modern mass illegal immigration + automatic citizenship creates "anchor babies" as a policy incentive the Framers never contemplated.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 12:58 pm to lake chuck fan
Everything about this is so dumb.
Birth right citizenship is part of the constitution whether you like it or not. Trying to find some pipe dream loophole isn't gong to work. If Trump wants it changed, then he can try to get congress to pass an amendment otherwise just deal with it.
Birth right citizenship is part of the constitution whether you like it or not. Trying to find some pipe dream loophole isn't gong to work. If Trump wants it changed, then he can try to get congress to pass an amendment otherwise just deal with it.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:03 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Birth right citizenship is part of the constitution whether you like it or not.
I don't like it and I disagree that todays understanding is the correct one.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:10 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Everything about this is so dumb.
I agree.
quote:
Birth right citizenship is part of the constitution whether you like it or not.
There are caveats. Significant ones. It is not absolute. People born to people here illegally may not be given this massive boon.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:26 pm to lake chuck fan
The case will not be decided on purely legal grounds using pure traditional legal analysis.
The case will be decided on as a policy decision based on the policy preferences of the individual members of the Court. The Court is fairly Progressive, so, IMHO, Birthright Citizenship will be Ruled : Constitutional.
The case will be decided on as a policy decision based on the policy preferences of the individual members of the Court. The Court is fairly Progressive, so, IMHO, Birthright Citizenship will be Ruled : Constitutional.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:34 pm to Tigers0918
Tigers0918 you are a idiot! My grandfather, great grandfather and great grandmother were born on American soil but we're not allowed to be U S citizens because they were American Indians living off of a reservation. Explain why? They were here legally and both men were working in the workforce but we're not allowed until 1924. All Native Americans born in the United States were granted US citizenship on June 2, 1924, through the Indian Citizenship Act (also known as the Snyder Act).
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:43 pm to lake chuck fan
Huuurrrahhh, I'm at Textualist or Originalist again.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 1:45 pm to lake chuck fan
Grok can apply basic logic and make an exemplary case.
Roberts and ACB, OTOH, will 100% screw the dog and usher in a wave of unprecedented birth tourism.
Prepare thy anus. 5-4 ruling against Trump in what should easily be a 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump.
Roberts and ACB, OTOH, will 100% screw the dog and usher in a wave of unprecedented birth tourism.
Prepare thy anus. 5-4 ruling against Trump in what should easily be a 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:13 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
quote:
Tigers0918 you are a idiot! My grandfather, great grandfather and great grandmother were born on American soil but we're not allowed to be U S citizens because they were American Indians living off of a reservation. Explain why? They were here legally and both men were working in the workforce but we're not allowed until 1924. All Native Americans born in the United States were granted US citizenship on June 2, 1924, through the Indian Citizenship Act (also known as the Snyder Act).
because even living off the reservation they were considered members of a separate, sovereign tribal nation. to be sure, some native americans were given citizenship as a result of the dawes act if they left the reservations and assimilated. that's the explanation, though.
indeed, that also explains why even today some native american tribes enjoy rights that other american citizens do not. for example, there are rivers here in the PNW that native americans are allowed to fish that non-natives are not allowed to fish.
natives' membership in tribal nations and the agreements/treaties that the federal government made with those nations is why they have that right.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:15 pm to Tigers0918
Squat and drop should not make one a citizen.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:28 pm to lake chuck fan
I don't see much value in debating what the 14th says vs what it doesn't say vs various interpretations of the wording.
But I would really enjoy for anyone who agrees with the current interpretation, which is to say that simply being born on American soil makes one a citizen, to explain WHY.
Why do you think this is not only a proper interpretation, but also why do you agree with it. Where is the benefit to this country?
I haven't seen much of that.
But I would really enjoy for anyone who agrees with the current interpretation, which is to say that simply being born on American soil makes one a citizen, to explain WHY.
Why do you think this is not only a proper interpretation, but also why do you agree with it. Where is the benefit to this country?
I haven't seen much of that.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:29 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
Birth right citizenship is part of the constitution whether you like it or not. Trying to find some pipe dream loophole isn't gong to work. If Trump wants it changed, then he can try to get congress to pass an amendment otherwise just deal with it.
What about you? Do you think it should be changed? If not, then why?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:38 pm to Bunsbert Montcroff
quote:.
because even living off the reservation they were considered members of a separate, sovereign tribal nation.
You are an idiot! You just confirmed the illegals are not allowed birthright citizenship.
That's the same as today's illegal aliens and if they are to be given citizenship then Congress needs to pass a specific bill just like they did with the Native Americans.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:56 pm to lake chuck fan
You dont need AI to make a case against birthright babies.....the answer is AMERICA FIRST!
Passing by and dropping an infant here is not citizenship, period.
Passing by and dropping an infant here is not citizenship, period.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 2:56 pm to Born to be a Tiger1
quote:
You are an idiot! You just confirmed the illegals are not allowed birthright citizenship.
That's the same as today's illegal aliens and if they are to be given citizenship then Congress needs to pass a specific bill just like they did with the Native Americans.
Actually, because the 14th Amendment specifically excluded most Indians, the presumption is that the architects of the amendment would have excluded any groups they wanted to exclude.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 3:09 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Actually, because the 14th Amendment specifically excluded most Indians, the presumption is that the architects of the amendment would have excluded any groups they wanted to exclude.
Wtf??? Lol
No, they excluded Indians because they held no allegiance to the US, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Same as with anyone here illegally, they are under the jurisdiction of thier country of origin, so are their children. Newborns are capable of making choices, therefore they are subject to their parents status.
This is fricking simple
Posted on 4/7/26 at 3:21 pm to LegendInMyMind
I ask this to chat gpt. It wasnt having anything to do with removing them. It made many attempts to show me how its the right way
Posted on 4/7/26 at 3:26 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
This is fricking simple
That is what I am saying. When a law is created, and exceptions to that law are specifically enumerated, there is a presumption that those are the extent of the exceptions. To include other, even similar, exceptions, you have to overcome that presumption. That is why the Wang spent so much time talking about the exceptions in Wong during her oral argument.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News