How many times have we heard that Plyler v. Doe confirms, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth? But as it turns out, that is a blatant lie, perpetuated to legitimatize "anchor babies", and the social and financial destruction they inflict upon American citizens and their children.
So, let us review the actual facts.
The first important fact to determine is, what was the court called upon to decide in Plyer v. Doe. The answer, as stated by Justice Brennan is:
"The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens."
The first thing to note is, the court was not called upon to decide if the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth
Let us now explore how the ongoing myth came to be, that Plyler v. Doe, (1982) ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil.
Justice Brennan writes in Plyler v. Doe:
“Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [10]
Brennan's Footnote 10 gives birth to the myth and reads as follows:
“Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.”
“Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).” (my bolding of the text)
So, as we find out, Justice Brennan never actually took up the question, if the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil. He merely references a writing of Clement Lincoln Bouvé, published in 1912 which asserted “. . . no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
And that is how the myth was born, that the court ruled in Plyler v. Doe, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, is granted United States citizenship at birth.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
So, let us review the actual facts.
The first important fact to determine is, what was the court called upon to decide in Plyer v. Doe. The answer, as stated by Justice Brennan is:
"The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens."
The first thing to note is, the court was not called upon to decide if the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth
Let us now explore how the ongoing myth came to be, that Plyler v. Doe, (1982) ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil.
Justice Brennan writes in Plyler v. Doe:
“Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [10]
Brennan's Footnote 10 gives birth to the myth and reads as follows:
“Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.”
“Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).” (my bolding of the text)
So, as we find out, Justice Brennan never actually took up the question, if the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil. He merely references a writing of Clement Lincoln Bouvé, published in 1912 which asserted “. . . no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
And that is how the myth was born, that the court ruled in Plyler v. Doe, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, is granted United States citizenship at birth.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
