    [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2025)]
    [House]
    [Pages H771-H772]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

      The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
      Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our country has just suffered the
    largest illegal mass migration in history.
      Over 4 years, the Democrats opened our borders and allowed an
    unvetted and largely impoverished population of nearly 8 million to
    illegally enter our country--a population the size of Washington State.
      This illegal mass migration has overwhelmed our public schools,
    public hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, and law enforcement,
    and it is costing American taxpayers $160 billion a year to support.
    Worst of all, it has introduced into our country the most violent
    criminal gangs and offenders on the planet.
      It has also brought to a head the fundamental question of whether any
    person in the world can break into our country, have a baby at taxpayer
    expense, have that baby declared an American citizen, and then use that
    as a pretext to remain.
      Now, President Trump has issued an executive order challenging that
    notion for all future births. The Democrats call this a threat to
    democracy and a constitutional crisis. That is what they call anything
    they disagree with these days, but it is neither. It is the
    Constitution functioning as it should.
      The President has created a dispute arising from a difference of
    opinion in interpreting the Constitution. Opponents in this dispute
    have appealed to the courts, as they should. Now, the courts will
    resolve this dispute under the terms of our Constitution.
      Meanwhile, I have a question for the Democrats: If the 14th Amendment
    actually confers automatic citizenship to anyone born here, wouldn't it
    have said all persons born or naturalized in the United States are
    citizens of the United States? That is simple enough.
      That is not what it says. It says: ``All persons born or naturalized
    in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
    citizens of the United States.''
      What does that mean? We know that it means the children of former
    slaves are citizens. That is its stated purpose and the plain language
    of the amendment passed, by the way, over the objections of the
    Democratic Party. We know from the congressional debate that its
    authors understood it to exclude foreign nationals who are merely
    passing through the country.
      The question of our time is whether those who have illegally entered
    our country in defiance of our laws and who are subject to deportation
    under those laws can be considered as having accepted the jurisdiction
    of the laws that their very presence defies.
      The Supreme Court has never considered this question. The closest it
    came was the Ark decision 127 years ago, but that applied to legal
    immigrants who had accepted the jurisdiction of the United States by
    obeying its immigration laws and who had taken up legal, permanent
    residence subject to a treaty ratified by the Senate.
      Does the President have the authority by executive order to clear up
    this matter as part of his organic constitutional responsibility to
    take care that the laws be faithfully executed? I don't know. Obama
    claimed the authority to create a legal residency for DACA
    beneficiaries out of thin air, so maybe he does. The Court will
    ultimately rule.
      Does the Congress have the authority to clear up this matter by
    statute? Only if that statute doesn't contradict the Constitution.
      Here is the fine point of the matter: If the 14th Amendment does not
    give automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those here
    illegally and temporarily, then no law should be necessary to deny them
    citizenship in the future because no law ever extended that right in
    the first place. In that case, the President's executive order is
    merely declaratory of existing law.
      Several lower courts have stayed the President's executive order, and
    no one is screaming that is a constitutional crisis, even though many
    of us strenuously disagree with those judges just as strenuously as the
    left disagrees with the President.
      Ultimately, though, we have faith in our Constitution, and as the
    case progresses through the courts, we will get

    [[Page H772]]

    a clear and authoritative ruling that will then determine whether the
    President's order stands or whether Congress needs to act either by
    statute or constitutional amendment.
      To call this a constitutional crisis is the kind of absurd and
    juvenile hyperbole that passes for argument these days by the woke
    left. I look forward to returning to a society someday when we can have
    civil discussions over high principles as our Founders envisioned.

                              ____________________