Rep. Roy, Senator Schmitt File Amicus Brief in Support of President Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order
WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX-21) and U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Subcommittees on the Constitution, filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of President Trump’s Executive Order defending the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
“For decades, birthright citizenship has been misused in ways the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended. President Trump is taking the necessary steps to uphold the Constitution and restore the rule of law. I thank my friend and highly accomplished attorney Chuck Cooper for his collaboration on this amicus along with Senator Schmitt. The deep constitutional expertise and careful scholarship in this brief present the Court with a clear and historically grounded defense of the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” said Rep. Roy.
“U.S. citizenship is a privilege, reserved for those with a permanent and lawful bond to the United States. But for decades, maximalist birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens has betrayed both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the intent of its drafters. It’s also threatened the sovereignty and security of our nation. President Trump is restoring the original meaning of the Constitution, and I’m glad to work with Representative Roy to present this clear and historic defense of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause before the Supreme Court,” said Senator Schmitt.
From the Amicus Brief:
“The history of the Fourteenth Amendment confirms that the Framers of the Citizenship Clause in the 39th Congress intended to guarantee birthright citizenship only to American-born persons whose parents permanently and lawfully reside in the United States.”
“The congressional history of the Citizenship Clause thus confirms, as renowned jurist and constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley put it, that the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . . meant that full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens generally are subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.’”
“‘Though commonly misunderstood, the holding in the Wong Kim Ark case is not to the contrary. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with the children of illegal aliens or aliens lawfully but temporarily admitted to the country. The plaintiff in Wong Kim Ark was born and raised in California by Chinese parents who “had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence” in the United States,’ 169 U.S. at 651, and thus enjoyed a ‘more distinct and larger measure of [sovereign] protection than those who are simply passing through,” Fong Yue Ting, 149 U.S. at 734 (Brewer, J. dissenting). Upon returning from a temporary visit to China, he was denied reentry under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred aliens “of the Chinese race . . . from coming into the United States.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 653. The Court held that he was a natural-born United States citizen and therefore not subject to exclusion under the Act. The Court was especially careful to frame the “single question” presented, which it repeated verbatim twice in the opinion . . .’”
“Text, structure, congressional history, binding precedent, and common sense all point in the same direction. The Citizenship Clause applies only to those who have been allowed to adopt our country as their permanent and lawful home. This Court should reverse.”
Read the full amicus brief HERE.
###