In an analytical discourse on the principles underpinning U.S. birthright citizenship, brothers Akhil and Vikram Amar have offered a pointed rebuttal to claims made by attorney Pete Patterson in a recent SCOTUSblog post. The Amar brothers dissect several misconceptions posed by Patterson, particularly concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Patterson asserts that the 14th Amendment contradicts automatic birthright citizenship for children of temporary visitors, positing that state citizenship requires permanent residence or domicile status. The Amars counter this assertion by highlighting that U.S. citizenship is distinct from state citizenship. For instance, a child born in the White House who resides in Washington, D.C. can be a U.S. citizen without being a state citizen, illustrating a fundamental misinterpretation by Patterson.
The critique extends to Patterson’s interpretation of historical legislative and constitutional texts. Patterson’s analysis of the 14th Amendment fails to consider its harmonization with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which sought to constitutionalize broad birthright citizenship, inclusive of those born in U.S. territories. The Amars assert that Patterson ignores significant legal commentaries and documents from 19th-century figures like President Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates and others, who underscored that children born in the U.S., regardless of parental nationality, are indeed citizens.
Furthermore, Patterson’s reading of historical legislative debates is challenged. Significant 19th-century legal figures, including Senator Benjamin Franklin Wade, affirmed that children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents temporarily residing in the country achieve citizenship. These historical affirmations are underscored in numerous legal and academic documents cited by the Amars, such as Akhil Amar’s work available through his recent book.
The Amars argue that Patterson’s insistence on parental domicile undermines the U.S.’s historical stance of inclusive equal birthright citizenship, reminiscent of 19th-century ideologies rejected by progressive lawmakers like Abraham Lincoln. Patterson’s conclusions, focusing on parental lineage and domicile, stand contrary to the egalitarian American constitutional principles established during and after the Civil War.
The full discourse can be accessed on SCOTUSblog in their complete response.