Professor Gregory Germain provided insight into the Blaze article on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Trump’s birthright citizenship case.
“I disagree with the 9th Circuit that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is clear on its face,” said Germain. “The clause on its face contains a limitation on birthright citizenship, requiring that the child be ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. Why was that language put in the Constitution if it was intended to be meaningless? So that language means something — the issue is what it means.”
Germain noted that the Supreme Court held in the case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that:
“Children born to permanent residents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even though the parents were citizens of China. But the Court also held that children of foreign soldiers occupying U.S. land or diplomats (or Indians) were not “subject to the jurisdiction” and not citizens. So the Court recognized that there were some exceptions to birthright citizenship, but did not clearly define them.”