Obama cemented the policy in FAM in 2009; 8 FAM 301.1 states: “All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally”, an executive-branch change moving beyond the “lawfully domiciled” premise. https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
Hillary Clinton was Obama’s Secretary of State.
The policy of Birthright Citizenship being given to children of people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and born on US Soil, became policy only due to bureaucratic usurpation of legislated law. The SCOTUS cases you discuss in your article emphatically makes clear that Congress is the one who determines how open or limited the process is to becoming lawful permanent residents, a US National, US citizen, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Clinton’s hijacked that legislative power and incorporated the policy at a time when Americans had limited access to this information, relying on legacy media to report the facts.
"Another objection is that the status quo, whatever its flaws, has created reliance interests. But reliance on an error of constitutional meaning is not a reason to perpetuate it."
However, there is another type of reliance. If you own a piece of property, and have it marked as "no trespassing", then legally I have no right to be there. However, if I continue to trespass, and you do nothing to enforce your rights, how long does your non-enforcement have to be to create an easement that exempts me from enforcement in future.
That doesn't rely on an error of constitutional meaning; that simply requires your de facto permission (edit)conveyed by non-enforcement(edit) whatever your de jure "no trespassing" sign says. Doesn't it?
By far the best essay I've read on this topic.
Good to settle the issue finally. Thanks for the article.
Unlimited Jus Soli never existed as US policy until Bill Clinton’s DOJ circulated a report to Congress threatening that any bill passed that limits jus soli that the DOJ would consider unconstitutional and not enforceable. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/legislation-denying-citizenship-birth-certain-children-born-united-states
Bill Clinton also updated the State Department’s 7 FAM 1111 in 1995 to create the new unlimited jus soli policy, excepting diplomats: https://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf?safe=1
Obama cemented the policy in FAM in 2009; 8 FAM 301.1 states: “All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally”, an executive-branch change moving beyond the “lawfully domiciled” premise. https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
Hillary Clinton was Obama’s Secretary of State.
The policy of Birthright Citizenship being given to children of people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and born on US Soil, became policy only due to bureaucratic usurpation of legislated law. The SCOTUS cases you discuss in your article emphatically makes clear that Congress is the one who determines how open or limited the process is to becoming lawful permanent residents, a US National, US citizen, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Clinton’s hijacked that legislative power and incorporated the policy at a time when Americans had limited access to this information, relying on legacy media to report the facts.
I appreciate your well-researched and well-reasoned arguments. Keep it up, please.
John Malcom has some misinformation. Here he can find out exactly what happens:
https://susandaniels.substack.com/p/the-misuse-of-the-14th-amendment
"Another objection is that the status quo, whatever its flaws, has created reliance interests. But reliance on an error of constitutional meaning is not a reason to perpetuate it."
However, there is another type of reliance. If you own a piece of property, and have it marked as "no trespassing", then legally I have no right to be there. However, if I continue to trespass, and you do nothing to enforce your rights, how long does your non-enforcement have to be to create an easement that exempts me from enforcement in future.
That doesn't rely on an error of constitutional meaning; that simply requires your de facto permission (edit)conveyed by non-enforcement(edit) whatever your de jure "no trespassing" sign says. Doesn't it?