- 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 ChatGPT to make an argument against Birthright Citizenship
Posted on 4/7/26 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 3:47 pm
There's a Grok thread, so trying out ChatGPT by asking this query;
Yes. I’ll lay out a fact-based, constitutionally grounded argument against birthright citizenship as it is currently interpreted under the Fourteenth Amendment—specifically focusing on legal interpretation, historical context, and policy implications (not rhetoric).
"The modern interpretation of the Citizenship Clause extends beyond its original meaning, misapplies historical intent, relies on incomplete judicial precedent, and creates policy incentives that conflict with national sovereignty and democratic consent."
That sounds about right.
quote:Here is its response:
Can you make an authentic, fact based argument against birthright citizenship in the US Constitutional Amendments and do it in a single paragraph of no more than 35 words?
Yes. I’ll lay out a fact-based, constitutionally grounded argument against birthright citizenship as it is currently interpreted under the Fourteenth Amendment—specifically focusing on legal interpretation, historical context, and policy implications (not rhetoric).
"The modern interpretation of the Citizenship Clause extends beyond its original meaning, misapplies historical intent, relies on incomplete judicial precedent, and creates policy incentives that conflict with national sovereignty and democratic consent."
That sounds about right.
8
Posted on 4/7/26 at 3:52 pm to HubbaBubba
Usually the argument is over trying to figure out the intent of the drafters and what the intent of the words were in their time.
This one is backwards, we are taking our contemporary understanding of citizenship and projecting back on to them.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:02 pm to HubbaBubba
Bottom line:
Left: birthright citizenship means we get more voters on our side. more dependence on us and our policies.
Right: getting rid of birthright citizenship means we're no longer inundated with illegals who don't contribute anything and we cannot afford to give them the benefits we're just throwing down the drain to them.
That's it.
No one cares about really what the Constitution says.
Left: birthright citizenship means we get more voters on our side. more dependence on us and our policies.
Right: getting rid of birthright citizenship means we're no longer inundated with illegals who don't contribute anything and we cannot afford to give them the benefits we're just throwing down the drain to them.
That's it.
No one cares about really what the Constitution says.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:07 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Here is its response:
That’s all it gave you? One sentence?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:09 pm to HubbaBubba
AI will spit out whatever you put in, the old garbage in garbage out BS
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:09 pm to HubbaBubba
I like to test it and make it say absurd things.
I just asked it “Make a convincing argument that smoking cigarettes is good for your health.” and it refused to and gave a detailed explanation why it isn’t.
So there is indeed a logical argument against birthright citizenship.
I just asked it “Make a convincing argument that smoking cigarettes is good for your health.” and it refused to and gave a detailed explanation why it isn’t.
So there is indeed a logical argument against birthright citizenship.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:13 pm to HubbaBubba
Here is the ChatGPT response, sans the "single paragraph of no more than 35 words" limitation.
I found this particularly interesting: "Historical meaning of jurisdiction (1866–1868): In antebellum and Reconstruction legal usage, “subject to the jurisdiction” generally meant complete political allegiance, not simply obedience to local laws.
Lyman Trumbull—chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act—explicitly stated that the phrase meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
I found this particularly interesting: "Historical meaning of jurisdiction (1866–1868): In antebellum and Reconstruction legal usage, “subject to the jurisdiction” generally meant complete political allegiance, not simply obedience to local laws.
Lyman Trumbull—chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act—explicitly stated that the phrase meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
quote:
Q: Can you make an authentic, fact based argument against birthright citizenship in the US Constitutional Amendments
A: Below is a fact-based, textually grounded, historically supported argument against birthright citizenship as currently interpreted under the Fourteenth Amendment. This reflects the position taken by many originalist scholars, jurists, and lawmakers. It is not an endorsement—just a rigorous articulation of the argument.
A FACT-BASED, TEXTUAL ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
1. The Text: “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Did Not Mean Mere Territorial Presence
The Citizenship Clause states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
Opponents argue that the key phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” imposed a meaningful limitation, not a redundancy.
Historical meaning of jurisdiction (1866–1868):
In antebellum and Reconstruction legal usage, “subject to the jurisdiction” generally meant complete political allegiance, not simply obedience to local laws.
Lyman Trumbull—chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act—explicitly stated that the phrase meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause, said it excluded “foreigners, aliens, [and] those who belong to the families of ambassadors.”
Thus, the drafters themselves described narrower coverage than current practice, explicitly excluding certain people born on U.S. soil from automatic citizenship.
2. Legislative Intent: The Amendment Was Written to Clarify the Status of Freed Slaves—Not to Create Universal Jus Soli
Historical records of the 14th Amendment debates show:
The principal purpose was correcting Dred Scott by securing citizenship for formerly enslaved people.
Senators repeatedly emphasized that the clause was not intended to cover all births on U.S. soil.
Early drafts of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which the Amendment constitutionalized) specifically excluded “Indians not taxed.”
Why? Because they owed allegiance to tribal governments—demonstrating that territorial birth was not itself sufficient.
Opponents argue that if territorial birth automatically conferred citizenship, these exclusions would have been unnecessary.
3. Historical Practice: The U.S. Did Not Treat All U.S.-Born Children of Foreign Nationals as Citizens Until the 20th Century
For decades after ratification, U.S. officials did not uniformly treat children of foreign nationals as citizens.
The first major case interpreting the clause, Elk v. Wilkins (1884), denied citizenship to someone born in U.S. territory because he was not “subject to the jurisdiction” in the political sense.
This contradicts the idea that the text mandated unconditional birthright citizenship from the start.
4. Supreme Court Precedent: Wong Kim Ark Did Not Resolve the Modern Question
Opponents argue that United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is far narrower than commonly thought:
The Court held that a child of lawful, permanent resident Chinese immigrants was a citizen.
It did not address:
children of tourists,
temporary visa holders,
unauthorized immigrants, or
transit passengers.
Thus, applying Wong Kim Ark to all births regardless of legal status rests on judicial extension and executive practice, not settled constitutional text.
Even Justice Gray’s majority opinion distinguished between people “domiciled” in the U.S. and transient foreigners, implying the decision might not apply to modern circumstances.
5. Comparative Law: The U.S. Interpretation Is an Outlier
Opponents note that:
Nearly all developed countries have rejected automatic jus soli, including:
U.K. (1983)
Australia (1986)
New Zealand (2006)
Ireland (2004, via referendum)
Their argument: The U.S. interpretation is historically unusual even among nations that inherited English common law.
This suggests unconditional birthright citizenship is not a universally compelled reading of common law or Fourteenth Amendment principles.
6. Structural Argument: The Constitution Gives Congress Broad Power Over Naturalization
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress exclusive authority:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Opponents argue:
The Fourteenth Amendment should not be interpreted to strip Congress of the ability to define which foreign nationals’ children become citizens.
If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is read broadly, Congress loses this authority.
Thus, a narrow interpretation is said to harmonize the Amendment with congressional powers rather than override them.
7. The “Allegiance” Principle: Citizenship Follows Political Membership, Not Accident of Geography
Under 19th-century legal thought:
Citizenship derived from mutual consent between individual and nation.
Birthright for the children of lawful, permanently settled residents fits this model.
Citizenship for children of people with no legal right to remain, or whose allegiance lies elsewhere, does not.
Opponents cite Vattel, Kent, and Story—all heavily referenced by the Framers—as supporting the principle that birthright citizenship does not apply to children whose parents owe political allegiance to foreign powers.
Conclusion (Opponents’ Core Claim)
A fact-based argument against birthright citizenship holds that:
• The text (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”),
• The intent (freedmen, not all foreigners),
• The historical practice,
• The precedent (Wong Kim Ark), and
• The structure of constitutional powers
all support a reading that the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to children of foreign nationals lacking full, legal, and permanent ties to the United States.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:43 pm to HubbaBubba
Posted on 4/7/26 at 4:59 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Here is its response:
Yes. I’ll lay out a fact-based, constitutionally grounded argument against birthright citizenship as it is currently interpreted under the Fourteenth Amendment—specifically focusing on legal interpretation, historical context, and policy implications (not rhetoric).
"The modern interpretation of the Citizenship Clause extends beyond its original meaning, misapplies historical intent, relies on incomplete judicial precedent, and creates policy incentives that conflict with national sovereignty and democratic consent."
That sounds about right.
ChatGBT has been reading my PT posts as well as several other PT regulars posts on birthright citizenship...
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:41 pm to TBoy
quote:I asked for 35 words or less. If you want the tl;dr version ask it yourself.
That’s all it gave you? One sentence?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News