Case of US-Born Iranian Doctor Brings Attention to Birthright Citizenship Policy

One of our country’s most insane policies is that of automatic birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil.

People in the Third World certainly know about this policy and take advantage of it.

The policy’s defenders assert that it’s in the Constitution and it would be a great injustice to change.

A surprising recent action taken by the U.S. government sheds some light on the issue.

The U.S. State Department, under the Biden administration, rejected the citizenship of Siavash Sobhani, a doctor in Virginia who was born in the United States in 1961.

Sobhani was considered an American citizen all his life and was simply renewing his passport.

But in June, the State Department informed Sobhani that he wasn’t a citizen, had never been a citizen, and shouldn’t have been recognized as such way back in 1961.

The Daily Mail explains the case in an article entitled, "Virginia doctor, Siavash Sobhani, who was born in US loses his CITIZENSHIP after applying for new passport because his dad was Iranian diplomat and he wasn't entitled to claim it."

As the article reports, “The State Department informed him that babies born in the US to parents with diplomatic immunity - which his father enjoyed as an Iranian Embassy employee at the time - shouldn't automatically acquire citizenship.”

Something similar occurred under the Obama administration in 2016, when the citizenship of Hoda Muthana was stripped on the grounds that her father was a Yemeni diplomat when she was born.

Many of our politicians, if asked about birthright citizenship, will just say it’s in the Constitution, though they probably haven’t even investigated it.

Current birthright citizenship policy is based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, a few years after the Civil War ended in 1865.

The Citizenship Clause in that amendment was placed there to ensure that recently-freed black Americans would be U.S. citizens. It wasn’t placed there to invite the Third World to colonize our country.

The clause, in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, stipulates, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Defenders of birthright citizenship for illegal babies stress the “born” part but skip over the “and subject to the jurisdiction" part.

However, it’s that very clause which was utilized by the Biden administration's State Department to strip Sobhani of his citizenship.

“As a member of your parent's household at the time of your birth, you also enjoyed full diplomatic immunity from the jurisdiction of the United States. As such, you were born not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, you did not acquire US citizenship at birth," the State Department explained to Sobhani in a letter.

Therefore, the State Department still recognizes that a child born to a foreign diplomat is not “subject to the jurisdiction."

But is everybody else subject to the jurisdiction?

Back in 1868, when they drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan said that the Citizenship Clause was "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

These “foreigners and aliens” not “subject to the jurisdiction” would sure seem to include the hordes of invaders currently pouring into our country.

If a pro-American government gets into power in 2025, it could legally abolish automatic birthright citizenship based on Senator Howard’s explanation of the Citizenship Clause.

This action would, of course, be strongly opposed and the case would probably go to the Supreme Court.

But the rescue of American citizenship is worth the fight.

You can find more of Allan Wall's work at his website.

Please donate to support our work

Visit BorderHawk.news

Border Hawk on X | Gab