Why the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments Do Not Extend Automatic Citizenship to Individuals Who Illegally Enter the USA and Were Born in Another Country

The issue of birthright citizenship for individuals who illegally enter the United States and are born in another country, owing allegiance to a foreign nation, has significant legal, constitutional, and moral implications.

If the Court shies away from addressing this issue through a careful re-examination of its precedents, original intent, and jurisdictional considerations, then it would indeed be seen as failing in its moral, ethical, and constitutional duties. The judicial branch must be willing to reassess precedents if the facts or the law have changed significantly, particularly when such issues touch on the rights of individuals, the sovereignty of the nation, and the original intent of the Constitution.

It is indeed the duty of Supreme Court justices to ensure their rulings are grounded in constitutional principles, and that they remain open to reassessing precedents when new legal or factual circumstances arise—especially in cases with significant moral and ethical dimensions such as the issue of birthright citizenship.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments do not extend automatic citizenship to such individuals, as their interpretations must align with the original intent of the framers and reflect the jurisdictional and allegiance requirements they intended. This argument outlines why the Supreme Court's precedents, specifically in the context of birthright citizenship, have been misinterpreted and why they must be reconsidered in light of the modern legal and political landscape.

Judicial Precedent and Original Intent:

• Precedent: While there are cases like Wong Kim Ark (1898) that have shaped the understanding of birthright citizenship, the question of whether the 14th Amendment extends to children of illegal immigrants hasn't been directly ruled on with finality in modern times. The Court's prior decisions haven't fully addressed the nuances around allegiance to a foreign nation in relation to illegal immigration.
• Original Intent: You’ve made a strong case based on the original intent of the 14th Amendment and the clear distinction between former slaves (who were clearly under U.S. jurisdiction) and those who illegally enter the country. Originalist or textualist justices may be more inclined to agree with the historical context you're presenting, especially since it’s rooted in the framers’ intentions.

Legal and Constitutional Shifts:

• Roe v. Wade Overturn: The overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 signalled that the Court is willing to reassess long-standing precedents. If the Supreme Court were willing to reconsider its interpretation of birthright citizenship, it could lead to a major shift in immigration law and birthright policy.
• Changing Public Opinion: If the Court believes that public policy has shifted or that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn't align with the country's present realities regarding immigration and sovereignty, this could influence its ruling.

Moral and Ethical Duty of the Court:

• The role of the justices isn’t just to interpret the law as it is, but also to apply the law in ways that reflect moral and ethical considerations. If the law is applied in a way that no longer aligns with societal needs, justice, or the intent of the framers, then it’s part of their duty to engage with that shift.
• In the case of birthright citizenship and illegal immigration, the justices should indeed be willing to reconsider precedents if they are found to be inconsistent with the original intent of the 14th Amendment and modern constitutional principles. This includes examining how current jurisdictional issues around illegal immigration interact with the 14th Amendment and whether the framers’ intentions would support a different interpretation today.

Reassessing Precedents:

• Precedents are certainly important, but they are not set in stone. Judicial review allows the Court to reinterpret laws as needed, especially when new circumstances arise that necessitate a fresh approach.
• The Wong Kim Ark case, while pivotal, might not have anticipated the scope of modern illegal immigration or the intricacies of foreign allegiance that could complicate the jurisdictional question today. As such, the Court should consider whether it’s still appropriate to apply the same interpretation of the 14th Amendment given the changing realities of immigration and sovereignty.

Dereliction of Duty:

• If the justices were to avoid reconsidering the issue, especially when presented with compelling arguments grounded in original intent and modern legal concerns, they could be seen as derelict in their duties. The justices’ responsibility is to ensure that the Constitution is interpreted faithfully, not just to uphold old rulings for the sake of consistency or tradition.
• Moral and ethical considerations should play a central role in interpreting the Constitution, especially on issues that affect individual rights and national sovereignty. The justices have a duty to ensure that the law continues to reflect the Constitution’s purpose—especially when a legal principle is no longer in harmony with the country’s values, needs, or intentions.

A Court that Upholds Justice:

• A well-functioning Court is one that is both rigid in upholding constitutional integrity and flexible enough to reconsider precedent when it’s in the interest of justice. If the Court hesitates to re-examine certain legal doctrines in light of modern-day concerns, it risks appearing as though it is failing to properly interpret the law in a manner consistent with its founding principles.

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

• The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to address the citizenship status of former slaves and their descendants. It explicitly grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was crucial in the framers’ minds and was intended to exclude individuals who were born in the United States but owed allegiance to another sovereign power.
• Illegal immigrants entering the United States without proper authorization, and who maintain allegiance to their home countries, do not fall within the scope of this constitutional provision. The original intent of the framers was to grant citizenship to those born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and allegiance. This does not extend to those who illegally enter the country and maintain ties with their nation of origin.

2. Reinterpretation of Precedents and Judicial Duty:

• Precedents like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) focused primarily on the children of legal residents and did not account for the complexities of modern illegal immigration. The Court’s duty is not merely to uphold previous rulings, but to reassess precedents when new facts or circumstances arise, especially in cases where moral and ethical considerations are at stake.
• The 14th Amendment’s original intent is clear: it was designed to grant citizenship to those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. This did not extend to children born to foreign nationals illegally residing in the U.S., who maintain allegiance to another nation. The Supreme Court should reexamine its approach, as the context of illegal immigration and foreign allegiance has changed dramatically since the 19th century.

3. The Court’s Dereliction in Not Reassessing the Issue:

• By failing to reconsider its interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the context of illegal immigration, the Supreme Court risks being derelict in its duty to uphold the Constitution. The framers’ intent, combined with the modern realities of immigration, necessitates a reaffirmation of the constitutional principles that jurisdiction and allegiance should be requirements for birthright citizenship. This failure to properly interpret the 14th Amendment in light of foreign allegiance and illegal entry undermines the Court's role in providing just and fair interpretations of the Constitution.

4. The Jurisdictional and Sovereign Allegiance Principles:

• The jurisdiction required by the 14th Amendment is not just a matter of physical presence within the country. It is tied to allegiance and duty to the United States. Individuals born on U.S. soil, who illegally enter the country and owe allegiance to a foreign power, should not automatically be granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment, as they are not truly “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
• Illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. without authorization, and whose loyalties remain to a foreign nation, fail to meet the constitutional requirement of allegiance to the United States. This is a fundamental distinction that the Supreme Court must address when considering birthright citizenship in the context of illegal immigration.

5. The Moral and Ethical Duty of the Court:

• The Supreme Court has a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that its rulings reflect the principles of justice, sovereignty, and the original intent of the Constitution. In the case of birthright citizenship, the Court should reconsider its precedent in light of modern-day issues surrounding illegal immigration and foreign allegiance.
• The Court’s role is not to uphold outdated precedents if they fail to account for contemporary legal and political realities. If the Court chooses to ignore these realities, it risks allowing an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that undermines U.S. sovereignty, dilutes allegiance to the nation, and fails to reflect the ethical and legal standards envisioned by the framers.

Conclusion:

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were never intended to grant automatic citizenship to individuals who illegally enter the United States, are born in another country, and owe allegiance to a foreign nation. The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with former slaves and those subject to U.S. jurisdiction. In light of the original intent of the framers, the Supreme Court’s precedents must be reexamined to ensure that birthright citizenship is not extended to individuals who do not meet the constitutional requirements of allegiance and jurisdiction.

The Court’s moral and ethical responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and ensure that its rulings reflect the principles of justice, sovereignty, and the framers’ original intent. Failure to reconsider these issues in the modern context would be a dereliction of the Court's duties.