“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.”

Seems simple enough, doesn’t it? But that clause that I have printed in bold does add a twist. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? The Courts have said that someone who owes primary allegiance to another country and is not subject to all American laws (i.e., children born of diplomats) are not subject to American jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment. There are a few other exceptions, like children of members of a foreign, occupying army and some others, but they are not likely to occur.

In its ruling today, on constitutional grounds, the Supreme Court upheld this definition of the term, so that children of the rich who travel here for the purpose of giving birth, children of those who sneak across the border in violation of American law, and I assume even those born in an airport while their mother waits to change planes, becomes automatically an American citizen.

This raised some questions in my mind. Such as: what about people born in Puerto Rico, not a “state” of the United States, but a place where everyone is a United States citizen? The answer is “yes”, but this is not on the basis of the federal constitution, but by federal statute. It could be taken away at any time. And this is true of Puerto Ricans who have lived in PR their entire lives, and children born of mothers who gave birth while just happening to be in Puerto Rico. It is the equivalent of being born in a state. But it can be taken away, at any time, by Congress.

The treatment of those born in Puerto Rico is the same as those born in Guam, the Virgin Islands and all other American territories…….except for American Samoa. In American Samoa, babies become United States Non-Citizen Nationals. To explain what that means would require me to write another blog post that I am sure I will never write.

Children born to at least one U.S. citizen (who meet certain qualifications involving their history of residence within the U.S.) can receive citizenship at birth. Those who are not so registered can become U.S. citizens late if they are under 18, legally in the United States and being raised by, under the custody of, their American parent. This again is statutory, not constitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that says that a baby born to the U.S. citizen outside of the country is automatically a citizen. So this, too, could be changed by Congress.

But, if a non-citizen gives birth in the United States, the baby is a citizen. So what, if anything can the administration to do stop throngs of would-be mothers from coming to the United States the minute their water breaks? Steven Miller has the answer. Do not allow pregnant women into the country. That would do it. All we have to do is have all women of child bearing age take a pregnancy test as part of their customs check upon entering the country. Then, what the Supreme Court says, does not matter.

Putting all this aside, does birthright citizenship make sense as a matter of policy? On its face, it seems like something that could be argued on either side. It does seem a bit arbitrary to say that a woman who happens to be in the country as a tourist, or short term visitor, gives birth, and even if she and her baby leave the day after he is born, he becomes eligible to vote in our elections and even one day run for president. On the other hand, I would think it is in everyone’s interest to make sure that no child is born stateless. And, of course, if a child is born in the United States, you know who the mother is, but not necessarily the father. It would be easier to determine paternity if the baby was here, for the father might be an American citizen. And, even more commonly, a pregnant non-American may be coming into the country to be with the father, who is an American, or who has a legal right to be here. It’s all a big burden to put on to the customs officials.

“A solution to a problem that doesn’t exist” is probably the best way to describe all of this. We are not overrun with babies born here, but with no connection to the country other than birth. I see nothing in our crime records, or our welfare rolls, that shows this to be a problem. It is one more way to stir up the crowd against those left wing globalists, who want to turn America into a cosmopolitan country with no sense of its own history.

One more thing to think about. Will the circle be unbroken? (I am not sure of the origin of that one.) What about this? Trump is president. Most people hate him and want him out. But they are unsure who should replace him. You don’t want to replace a right wing crazy with a left wing crazy (remember my post of a few days ago saying how no one likes communists, but only enemies hate fascists), so you call all Democrats communists. None of them are but, because the MAGA crew is so despicable, the Democrats run candidates who are as anti-MAGA as you can get, and they tend to be more on the left than than moderate Democrats. So you wind up with Mayor Mamdani, and left wing Democratic candidates for the House in New York. You wind up with left wing mayoral favorites in Seattle and Washington DC. And now, yesterday, we see the same thing happening in Colorado, where more progressive candidates oust more moderate ones.

“See”, says the Trumpers, “see what we told you about the Democrats? Radical, leftists, communists.” Because the Democrats run to the left, rather than running to the middle, it is possible that the frightened mainstream voter, not thinking he would be a victim of the fascists, but knowing how he would fare under the communists, is afraid to vote for the progressive Democrat, and – just possibly – in some places this would be sufficient to enable the GOP to win once more.

Will the circle be unbroken?