Birthright citizenship is being challenged by President Trump and a local expert says it is based on sound legal reasoning.
John Eastman Constitutional Law Professor at Chapman University says birthright citizenship is a relatively recent practice.
“We’ve not been doing it forever. It started in the 1960s. We didn’t treat Native Americans as automatically citizens even though they were born here until an Act of Congress was passed in 1923. We didn’t treat guest worker children born here in the 1920s as citizens when they were repatriated after the Great Depression. The same was true of the Bracero Program in the 1950s and 60s. So it’s only in the last 40 or 50 years that birth, no matter what the circumstance gives rise to automatic citizenship has kind of crept into our nation’s psyche.”
He says there is confusion because of the wording of the 14th Amendment.
“The Constitution sets out two requirements. You’ve got to be born here and you got to be subject to our jurisdiction. And it’s that last phrase that’s the source of confusion, because it has two different meanings. Subject to our partial or territorial jurisdiction means you’re subject to our laws while within our territory. Subject to our complete jurisdiction means you’re part of the body politic, in some measure. You owe some measure of allegiance to the country.”
Professor Eastman says it was well understood at the time of the Amendment’s writing that citizenship was only intended for people who were under no other jurisdiction at the time a child was born. So, citizens of other countries should be exempt from that benefit.
John Eastman was a guest on McIntyre in the Morning.
By Sandy Wells
KABC News