For many years and through many address changes, Hillsdale College has regularly sent me its print newsletter, Imprimis, for free. I sometimes look at it. It’s been known to have good articles. The lead piece in the March/April 2026 issue, though, has me inclined to put each one straight into recycling.
The piece in question, by Edward J. Erler, is titled “Are We Subjects or Citizens? Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution.” It says, “Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply not true.”
Already the presentation is suspicious. The birthright citizenship clause is a declaration of who is a citizen, not a command. It isn’t about British common law.
A little further, he claims that “the idea of birthright citizenship … is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant…” That’s complete nonsense. The main goal of the Constitutional clause in question was to affirm that former slaves born in the United States have the rights of citizenship. In other words, to destroy the involuntary relation of master and servant.
The article tries to portray citizenship as an obligation bound on people, a form of serfdom. It does come with obligations, but on balance, it’s a benefit which people want to keep. It lets a person vote (subject to other requirements, such as age). It gives stronger protection under the law. It’s supposed to make a person immune from deportation, though lately this hasn’t always been observed.
Erler goes through various dodges, citing irrelevant history. He argues that jurisdiction “connoted ‘complete jurisdiction’ — in other words, not owing allegiance to anyone else.” If someone born in the US claims citizenship in another country on the basis of their parents, it seems reasonable at least to question their US citizenship. But in most cases, we’re talking about people who have lived in the US since their birth and don’t think of themselves as citizens of any other country. Foreign diplomats are an often-mentioned exception; they aren’t subject to US jurisdiction, and their children normally aren’t considered citizens. He’s not talking about dual citizenship or diplomatic immunity, though, but setting up a spurious claim about allegiance.
He declares that “‘subject to the jurisdiction’ does not simply mean, as is commonly thought, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.” If it’s “commonly thought” that jurisdiction means the sphere in which laws may be enforced and courts may act, that’s because because it does.
The implications of Erler’s doctrine are frightening. Citizenship would no longer be guaranteed by the Constitution to any American; it would depend on our attitudes as perceived by the government. If “allegiance” is a precondition of citizenship, then even people descended from the Pilgrims could have it revoked if the government calls their allegiance in doubt. For all I can tell, refusing to recite the Pledge to the Flag might be deemed enough to establish lack of allegiance. The title’s significance now becomes clear; Erler is saying we’re subjects, required to give fealty to the government.
It’s the same game as “creation science” or Holocaust denial. The aim is to create the impression of a two-sided question where there isn’t one, to make people think there’s a controversy over whether “jurisdiction” means jurisdiction or something else.
Not all arguments against birthright citizenship are dishonest on their face, even though I don’t think they’re valid. For instance, someone could argue that many countries have citizenship by parentage rather than place of birth and their claim takes precedence. My understanding is that if people born in the US don’t go to their parents’ homeland and don’t ask for citizenship, they’re US citizens and not subject to the rule of their parents’ country. The US took this position in the War of 1812.
Any publication will have articles I disagree with and even some I consider stupid. Pretending that denying people citizenship is saving them from serfdom, though, is absurd. A publication that claims to have editorial principles but features dishonest articles on its front page doesn’t get my respect.
A lot depends on the word “public.” What is a “public place”? The streets of Montreal are certainly public, but what about the Palais de Congrès, where the convention will take place? What about hotels where fans will stay? Will the convention be able to schedule religious gatherings? This is a question for lawyers, and I hope the con will have some answers for the public. I wrote to the convention’s address for asking questions, and so far I’ve gotten an acknowledgement but no other response. Probably they’re still working on it.