13th-15th Amendments Don't Grant Automatic Citizenship to Foreign Nationals or Illegal Entrants

Introduction: The issue of birthright citizenship for individuals who illegally enter the United States, are born in another country, and owe allegiance to a foreign nation has significant legal, constitutional, and moral implications. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, when interpreted according to their original intent and historical context, do not extend automatic citizenship to such individuals. This argument incorporates the foundational principles established by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the historical intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court’s moral duty to revisit misinterpretations of precedent in light of modern realities.

1. The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment and Jurisdictional Requirements

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was explicitly designed to address the citizenship status of former slaves and their descendants. Its Citizenship Clause states:

"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 phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is pivotal. During its drafting, Senator Jacob M. Howard, a key sponsor of the Amendment, clarified that this provision was meant to exclude individuals who owed allegiance to a foreign power, such as foreign diplomats and Native Americans under tribal sovereignty.

Key Exclusion: Allegiance to Foreign Powers

The framers’ intent was clear: citizenship was to be granted only to those fully subject to U.S. laws and jurisdiction, with no allegiance to another sovereign. This explicitly excluded:

• Individuals under the jurisdiction of foreign nations.
• Those who entered or resided in the U.S. unlawfully and retained allegiance to their home countries.

2. The Civil Rights Act of 1866: Foundational Evidence

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 served as the precursor to the 14th Amendment and provided critical insight into the framers’ intent. The Act declared:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

Application to Modern Issues:

• The language “not subject to any foreign power” unequivocally ties citizenship to the condition of allegiance to the United States. This aligns with the jurisdictional clause in the 14th Amendment.
• Illegal immigrants, by definition, remain subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. Their children, therefore, do not meet the requirements for automatic citizenship under either the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the 14th Amendment.

3. Misinterpretation of Precedent and the Duty to Reassess

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) has been widely cited to support birthright citizenship. However, this ruling addressed the children of legal immigrants, not illegal entrants. The Court’s interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is often misapplied to modern issues of illegal immigration.

Clarifying Wong Kim Ark:

• The decision focused on a child born to Chinese parents who were legal residents, emphasizing their presence under full U.S. jurisdiction.
• The Court did not address individuals who entered the U.S. unlawfully or who maintained allegiance to a foreign nation. Applying Wong Kim Ark to illegal immigrants is a misinterpretation of its scope and intent.

Judicial Responsibility:

The Supreme Court has a moral and ethical duty to revisit its precedents when they no longer align with the original intent of the Constitution or with modern realities. The failure to address jurisdictional issues related to illegal immigration constitutes a dereliction of this duty. The Court must ensure that its rulings reflect both constitutional principles and the framers’ intentions.

4. The 13th and 15th Amendments: Contextual Clarifications

• 13th Amendment: This amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. It does not address issues of citizenship but was intended to secure freedom for former slaves. It has no relevance to individuals entering the U.S. unlawfully.
• 15th Amendment: This amendment guarantees voting rights regardless of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude. Like the 13th Amendment, it has no bearing on the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

5. Modern Realities: Jurisdiction, Allegiance, and Illegal Immigration

The principle of jurisdiction requires allegiance to the United States. Illegal immigrants who enter without authorization are not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction because they remain under the allegiance of their home countries. This distinction is critical:

• Jurisdictional Integrity: The framers intended for citizenship to be reserved for individuals who were fully integrated into U.S. society and legal systems. Illegal entrants fail to meet this standard.
• Sovereignty Concerns: Granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants undermines U.S. sovereignty by extending benefits to individuals who are not legally part of the national community.

6. Incorporating the Court’s Moral and Ethical Duty

The Supreme Court has a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that its rulings uphold justice, sovereignty, and the original intent of the Constitution. In the context of birthright citizenship, this requires:

• Reassessing precedent to ensure alignment with historical and constitutional principles.
• Addressing the modern complexities of illegal immigration and foreign allegiance.
• Ensuring that interpretations of the 14th Amendment respect the jurisdictional requirements established by the framers and reinforced by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Conclusion:

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, when interpreted according to their original intent, do not extend automatic citizenship to individuals who illegally enter the United States, are born in another country, and owe allegiance to a foreign nation. The foundational principles established by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the framers of the 14th Amendment emphasize jurisdiction, allegiance, and lawful presence as prerequisites for citizenship. The Supreme Court must revisit its misinterpretations of precedent, ensuring that its rulings reflect both the historical intent of the Constitution and the realities of modern immigration.

This reaffirms that birthright citizenship, as originally conceived, was never intended to apply to the children of illegal immigrants. It is the Court’s responsibility to uphold these principles and protect the integrity of U.S. sovereignty and constitutional law.

SOURCE: 

file:///C:/Users/clark/Downloads/1866FirstCivilRightsAct.pdf