Professor Jonathan Turley: It’s ‘Insane’ We Continue to Embrace Birthright Citizenship
“What was really astonishing yesterday is it appeared that we might have nine originalists on the court because the liberal justices started to channel Scalia”
Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University appeared on FOX News yesterday to offer analysis on the birthright citizenship case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Turley noted the irony of the liberal justices suddenly becoming Scalia-style originalists while also pointing out that the United States is one of the few countries in the world that still has such an ‘insane’ policy.
From the Daily Caller:
Jonathan Turley Says It’s ‘Insane’ US Is One Of Few Countries With Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump’s executive order that ended birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens. Turley said on “Fox & Friends” that the current issues with birthright citizenship pose a major threat to the country.
“The fact that we are one of the few countries that continues to embrace birthright citizenship is perfectly insane, and it is a great danger to this government and to this republic,” Turley said. ” So the question for these justices is not necessarily if they agree with birthright citizenship. I expect the majority does not.”
Turley said that the justices all appeared to be acting like originalists, meaning they interpreted the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time of adoption. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 primarily to grant freed slaves and their children citizenship.
“What was really astonishing yesterday is it appeared that we might have nine originalists on the court because the liberal justices started to channel Scalia and to say, ‘oh, you know, we’ve got to stick with the original intent here.’ These are justices, when they look at other rights like the Second Amendment, treat that language as barely a speed bump,” Turley continued. “And they say, well, we have to look at this living constitution and the problems we’re facing today. Well, the problems we’re facing today on birthright citizenship are existential in my view.”
See the clip below:
🚨NEW🚨 @JonathanTurley says it's INSANE that we continue embracing birthright citizenship @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/G81xdzaZKM
— Nicole Silverio (@NicoleMSilverio) April 2, 2026
Later in the day, Turley appeared on the Ingraham Angle and expanded his thoughts on the subject. Watch:
Featured image via YouTube.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
All I remember from the oral arguments yesterday is that stealing a wallet in Japan has something to do with birthright citizenship.
The Japanese Prime minister was forced to warn tourists: “If you have a baby while stealing a wallet in Japan your baby will not receive Japanese citizenship.”
Good point. But all kidding aside, the baby in your hypothetical would obviously be a US citizen of birth. Give KBJ some credit. (Or is that KJB? I frankly don’t care.)
I don’t think I am the only one who keeps typing KFC for Jackson.
The meaning of those words at the time they were written is not a mystery. The Senate kept records of the debate on the floor. There was no intent for criminals to enter our country and then make citizens by accident of birthplace.
Originalists. Uh huh. That’s not so good when they seem ignorant of the original meaning of the citizenship clause.
And i should point out that these learned justices couldn’t even understand, or perhaps never even read, Wong Kim Ark, seeming quite perplexed why domicile was mentioned so many times in that old precedent. Might be because the issue argued by the parties in the district court concerned whether the child of domiciled residents was a citizen at birth, the question presented to the Supreme Court concerned whether the child of domiciled residents was a citizen at birth, and the holding of Wong Kim Ark itself literally decided only that the child of legally domiciled residents was a citizen at birth. Mystery solved.
But doesn’t matter. Roberts is a political animal (an extremely arrogant one at that) who has probably already decided to create a new “originalist” interpretation of the Citizenship Clause that will complement a new interpretation of Wong Kim Ark. And Barrett will follow him like an unthinking puppy. Sorry to say but her nomination was a mistake.
It is truly insane to grant citizenship to illegals and those here only temporarily.
Definitely insane. Gonna be interesting to see how quickly the d/prog leftists pivot away from their sudden ‘respect for originalism’ when 2A comes up again as they turn so fast it snaps their necks.
Since section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to write legislation to enforce the other sections of said Amendment Congress should simply write into the law what ‘subject to the jurisdiction ‘ means.
Roberts slapped down the most intelligent point made in the government’s case. If you wish to plumb the original intent, just ask yourself if the authors would have wanted the direct consequence of the current accepted interpretation. Since the answer is obvious the cowardly, crypto-homo disparaged it. He will vote against.
I don’t know if it is mentioned in the legislative history but it seems to me logical that if the framers of the 14th were concerned about establishing citizenship for freed slaves they must have been primarily concerned that somebody would make it a legal requirement for them to be naturalized or prove they were born of naturalized citizen parents (something I don’t think slaves ever were) in order to be considered citizens. This makes the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause intelligible as slaves were brought to, and then remained enslaved, due to Federal and state laws before the Civil War. It also aligns with the fact that nobody, even as late as the 1920s, thought Native Americans who were under tribal authority were US citizens even though they and their ancestors had been born on American soil for countless generations. Claiming the 14th establishes American citizenship by location of birth seems ludicrous, regardless of how it has been misinterpreted (to the favor of one political party) in the past.
IMHO the mixing of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors into one EO didn’t do any favors to the government here, unless SCOTUS decides to split the baby a bit.
I’d actually thing the short term visitors actually have a better case, as they are at least in the country under the permission of the realm.
Think of this hypothetical. An army of 2000 Vikings land in East Anglia, sack a town and spends the winter. No one would consider those children born to be English subject.
Now, what about one viking long boat with 20 people landing by itself.
Both illegal aliens and visitors are in the same position; neither owe allegiance to the USA. Both are temporarily in the USA. An illegal alien is subject to removal at whim of Govt upon discovery and a visa has a time limit. In neither case does either group have a claim to legal permanent domicile. Both groups remain citizens of their Nation of origin to where they owe their allegiance.
By contrast a lawful permanent alien (green card) has been granted lawful status to remain in the USA and establish a permanent domicile. This is the analogous status of the Parents of Wong Kim Ark and the basis for why SCOTUS declared him to be a US Citizen; he was born in the USA to Parents who were lawfully present and had established domicile.
Your hypothetical about children born of Vikings draws the wrong conclusion (plus many were ‘invited’ and granted lands). The English common law held that anyone born in Britain owed their allegiance to the Crown, that they were British subjects and were unable to renounce that status. This was the position held and expressed by the Brits even after the Revolutionary War and was in large part the reason for the War of 1812. The British Navy stopped US merchant ships and ‘pressed’ sailors off US vessels regardless of their current Citizenship status. We fought a war against the principle that mere geography determines Citizenship.
In sum the progeny of Parents without legal permission to remain in the USA permanently and establish their domicile here are in the same category. It isn’t possible to separate the claims because the same logical basis binds them together.
The argument is fairly simple. There is a general consensus in the legal world that because an invading army would be in-country illegally and because they have allegiance to, and are subject to the jurisdiction of, their own country, any children the female members of that army might bear while on US soil are not granted US citizenship.
Aliens who enter the country illegally are in a directly analogous situation. They are (by definition) illegally in-country and they have allegiance to, and are subject to the jurisdiction of, their native countries. So, why should their children born here benefit from citizenship when the parents are legally no different than foreign invaders?
If there is an argument in favor of granting US citizenship to the children born in an invading army, I have yet to hear it. To my knowledge, no one has ever posited that the 14th Amendment requires such a thing.
“Because the Constitution says so!” they say. Bruh.
Leave a Comment