The enduring debate on birthright citizenship in the United States has been reignited by attorney Pete Patterson’s latest arguments, as examined in his recent post on SCOTUSblog. Patterson has continually asserted that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause does not incorporate English principles of subjectship. However, critics suggest he both reiterates previous mistakes and introduces new misunderstandings, focusing on inconsistencies and misinterpretations of key legal subjects.
Patterson’s claims revolve around the national citizenship provision, arguing against automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S. to foreign parents, akin to a scenario involving a British couple in Florida. However, as outlined by critics, this overlooks a foundational statute which declares that “any person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is granted citizenship. This statute does not specify conditions regarding the parents’ nationality or residence stateside.
- Patterson’s position seemingly aligns with an executive order by former President Donald Trump on birthright citizenship, yet the executive order itself would grant citizenship to the child if one parent were American.
- Notably, Patterson’s critique fails to focus on the amendment’s essential text about the individual born, dismissing parental domicile considerations as irrelevant according to the 14th Amendment.
Patterson draws upon historical figures such as Justice Joseph Story, yet scholars argue that Story’s 19th-century musings diverge from the legal principles enacted in 1868. This was further underscored by Akhil Reed Amar, who has expanded on these facets in various writings, including legal briefs. Moreover, critics emphasize that equating statements from the 1860s with the 14th Amendment text is misleading.
Another critical point dismissed by Patterson is the precise wording differences between the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, particularly the “jurisdiction” clause. On SCOTUSblog, Amar and others have consistently highlighted these textual discrepancies, stressing a holistic reading of the text itself. Patterson’s failure to address the “under the flag” requirement underscores a lack of engagement with the complete legal argument.
The legal community and interested commentators may follow the ongoing discussion, detailed extensively by Amar and his associates, through various SCOTUSblog posts and podcasts, where these contentions continue to unfold. As this legal dialogue progresses, birthright citizenship remains an issue of both historical importance and contemporary relevance.