A Structural Challenge to Michael Cohen’s “The Citizenship Hustle” Argument As Is Referenced Following My Sign-off
A Structural Challenge
Michael, if we remove the theatrics and examine only the structure of your argument, the question becomes simple: Does birth tourism fall outside the constitutional principle of territorial citizenship?
The historical claim—that the framers could not imagine modern travel—does not, by itself, alter the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutional principles routinely apply to circumstances the framers never foresaw. If the rule is territorial citizenship, the method of arrival does not change the rule.
Calling birth tourism a “loophole” is rhetorically powerful but legally imprecise. A loophole is an unintended gap; birthright citizenship has been repeatedly affirmed as intentional. If the concern is commercial exploitation, then the argument requires a clear principle distinguishing those visitors from any other short‑term visitor who gives birth. Without that principle, the moral distinction cannot support the policy distinction.
Your critique of reflexive opposition is fair—but symmetry matters. If we reject reflexive opposition, we must also reject reflexive support. The standard should be constitutional text, precedent, and enforceability, not the identity of the president proposing the policy.
You call for an adult conversation. I agree. That conversation requires clarity on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means today, whether an executive order can narrow a constitutional guarantee, how enforcement can avoid sweeping far beyond commercial operators, and what the actual scale of the problem is. These are structural questions—architectural questions—not partisan ones.
Please reference:
