怎樣才算美國公民？
華盛頓——第14修正案的內(nèi)容很明確，關(guān)于其涵義的學(xué)術(shù)和司法共識幾乎是一致的：在美國出生的孩子自動成為美國公民。
In an interview released Tuesday, President Trump proposed a different reading of the amendment, one he said denies birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. Mr. Trump said he was preparing to issue an executive order to that end.
在周二公布的采訪中，特朗普總統(tǒng)提出了對該修正案的不同解讀，這一解讀否認(rèn)了無證移民子女的出生公民權(quán)。特朗普說他準(zhǔn)備為此發(fā)布行政命令。
The statement sounded more like a political stunt than a reasoned legal argument, and its timing, coming a week before the midterm elections, was suspect. Nor was it clear what the executive order would say, or how it could change the meaning of the Constitution.
這個(gè)宣言聽上去更像是一個(gè)政治噱頭而非合理的法律辯論，而且在中期選舉前一周發(fā)布，這個(gè)時(shí)機(jī)令人懷疑。行政命令會說什么或者它將如何改變憲法的涵義，目前也不清楚。
But there was little question that any action by Mr. Trump to try to alter birthright citizenship would be met with immediate legal challenges.
但毫無疑問，特朗普試圖改變出生公民權(quán)的任何行動都將馬上面臨法律挑戰(zhàn)。
“The president cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms.”
“總統(tǒng)不能用行政命令抹掉憲法，而第14修正案的公民身份保證也很明確，”美國公民自由聯(lián)盟移民權(quán)利項(xiàng)目(American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project)主任奧馬爾·賈德瓦特(Omar Jadwat)說。 “在中期選舉的前幾天，這是昭然若揭、公然違憲的制造分裂企圖，而且力圖煽動反移民仇恨的火焰。”
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War, says, “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.”
第14修正案公民身份條款是在南北戰(zhàn)爭后批準(zhǔn)的，內(nèi)容是：“所有在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國并受其管轄的人，都是合眾國的和他們居住州的公民。”
The meaning of that clause is plain, said Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University. “The conventional understanding is absolutely clear that children born in the United States are citizens of the United States, with the insignificant exception of the children of diplomats,” he said.
天普大學(xué)(Temple University)的法學(xué)教授彼得·J·斯皮羅(Peter J. Spiro)說，該條款的含義很明確。“傳統(tǒng)的理解絕對清晰，在美國出生的孩子就是美國公民，外交官子女的例外微不足道，”他說。
A main purpose of the clause was to overrule Dred Scott, the shameful 1857 Supreme Court decision that said black slaves were property and not citizens. The decision said the Constitution barred Congress and the states from granting citizenship to the descendants of slaves, and it helped prompt the Civil War.
該條款的主要目的是否決德雷德·斯科特(Dred Scott)一案，這是1857年最高法院可恥的決定，稱黑人奴隸是財(cái)產(chǎn)而不是公民。該決定稱，憲法禁止國會和各州向奴隸后裔授予公民身份，該決定參與推動了內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。
“In its most monumentally erroneous decision, the Supreme Court created a monstrous exception to the common law rule that birth on American soil to a free person was sufficient for American citizenship,” Walter Dellinger, then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said in congressional testimony in 1995. “The court held that no persons of African descent — including free persons of African descent — and none of their descendants for all time to come could ever be citizens of the United States regardless of their birth in America.”
“這是最高法院最重大的錯(cuò)誤決定之一，普通法規(guī)定，在美國土地上作為自由人出生便足以獲得美國公民身份，該決定為其制造了一個(gè)可怕的例外，”時(shí)任司法部法律顧問辦公室(Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel)主任沃爾特·德林杰(Walter Dellinger)在1995年的國會證詞中說道。“法院認(rèn)為，非裔——包括自由的非裔——以及他們的后代都不能成為美國公民，無論他們是否出生在美國。”
In congressional debates about the 14th Amendment in 1866, lawmakers said its sweep should be wide.
在1866年關(guān)于第14修正案的國會辯論中，立法者表示其適用范圍應(yīng)該是廣泛的。
“Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked on the Senate floor.
“加利福尼亞州中國移民的孩子是公民嗎?”賓夕法尼亞州參議員埃德加·考恩(Edgar Cowan)在參議院詢問。
Senator John Conness of California said the answer was yes.
加州參議員約翰·康尼斯(John Conness)表示，答案是肯定的。
“The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens,” Mr. Conness said.
“在加利福尼亞出生的所有孩子都應(yīng)該被視為美國公民，享有與其他公民平等的公民權(quán)利，”康尼斯說。
The Supreme Court confirmed that understanding in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ruling that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a United States citizen, even though the parents were prohibited by the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever becoming citizens.
最高法院確認(rèn)了1898年在美國訴黃金德(United States v. Wong Kim Ark)案中達(dá)成的理解，裁定中國父母在舊金山生下的孩子是美國公民，即使《排華法案》禁止其父母成為公民。
“To hold that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries,” the court said, “would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
“如果憲法第14修正案將其他國家公民在美國所生的孩子排除在公民身份之外，”法院說，“這等于拒絕成千上萬的英國人、蘇格蘭人、愛爾蘭人、德國人或其他歐洲人，他們一直被視為美國公民，享受美國公民待遇。”
James C. Ho, a conservative legal scholar recently appointed by Mr. Trump to the federal appeals court in New Orleans, has written that the message of the decision is unmistakable. “This sweeping language reaches all aliens regardless of immigration status,” he wrote in 2006.
最近由特朗普任命為新奧爾良聯(lián)邦上訴法院法官的保守法律學(xué)者何俊宇(James C. Ho)寫道，該決定的信息是明白無誤的。“這種籠統(tǒng)的語言涵蓋了所有外國人，無論其是否擁有移民身份，”他在2006年寫道。
The 1898 decision did not specifically discuss unauthorized immigrants. But in 1982, in Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that undocumented children were entitled to free public education. The court relied on another part of the 14th amendment, its equal protection clause, and it interpreted language similar to that in the citizenship clause.
1898年的判決沒有具體討論未獲允許的移民。但在1982年，在普萊勒訴無名氏(Plyler v. Doe)案中，最高法院裁定無身份證明兒童有權(quán)享受免費(fèi)公共教育。法院的裁判是依據(jù)第14修正案的另一部分，即平等保護(hù)條款;它的解釋語言與公民身份條款的語言相類似。
“Although the court splintered over the specific question of public education,” Mr. Ho wrote, “all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.”
“盡管法院在公共教育的具體問題上存在分歧，”何俊宇寫道，“但所有九名大法官都同意，平等保護(hù)條款保護(hù)合法和非法的外國人。所有九個(gè)人都得出了這個(gè)結(jié)論，正是因?yàn)榉欠ǖ耐鈬送戏ǖ耐鈬伺c美國公民一樣‘受到美國司法管轄’。”
In asides in later decisions, too, the Supreme Court has assumed that the children of unauthorized immigrants born in the United States are citizens. 在后來的裁決中，最高法院也曾順帶提到，在美國出生的無證移民子女是美國公民。
Two of Mr. Trump’s appointees sit on the Supreme Court, and it is more conservative than it has been in decades. But there is little reason to think a majority of the justices would be inclined to adopt Mr. Trump’s understanding of the 14th Amendment, as the constitutionality of birthright citizenship is not an issue that tends to divide lawyers along ideological lines.
最高法院現(xiàn)有兩名特朗普提名的大法官，形成數(shù)十年來最為保守的最高法院陣容。但幾乎沒有理由認(rèn)為，多數(shù)法官會傾向于采納特朗普對第14修正案的理解，因?yàn)槁蓭煵粫蛞庾R形態(tài)立場不同而在出生公民權(quán)的合憲性問題上產(chǎn)生對立。
“According to the best reading of its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is an American citizen,” John Yoo, who served in the George W. Bush administration and is now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote last week.
“根據(jù)對文本、結(jié)構(gòu)和歷史的最佳解讀，只要出生于美國領(lǐng)土，無論其國籍、種族或身份，都是美國公民，”曾在小布什(George W. Bush)政府任職、現(xiàn)為加州大學(xué)伯克利分校法學(xué)教授的柳約翰(John Yoo)上周寫道。
“The 14th Amendment settled the question of birthright citizenship,” Professor Yoo wrote. “Conservatives should not be the ones seeking a new law or even a constitutional amendment to reverse centuries of American tradition.”
“第14修正案解決了出生公民權(quán)的問題，”柳約翰寫道。“尋求一部新法律甚至憲法修正案來逆轉(zhuǎn)數(shù)個(gè)世紀(jì)來的美國傳統(tǒng)，不應(yīng)該是保守派做的事情。”
A few prominent scholars have dissented, notably Peter H. Schuck, an emeritus professor at Yale Law School. “The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent,” he wrote in 2010.
一些著名學(xué)者對此表達(dá)了異議，尤其是耶魯大學(xué)法學(xué)院榮休教授彼得·H·舒克(Peter H. Schuck)。“反對出生公民權(quán)的理由是，這些孩子在這里是違法行為的結(jié)果，因此在一個(gè)基于雙方同意為目標(biāo)的國家里，他們無權(quán)要求成為公民，”他在2010年寫道。
Mr. Trump did not say whether his executive order would attempt to apply his understanding of the 14th Amendment retroactively. Revoking citizenship, the Supreme Court has said, poses special concerns.
特朗普沒有說他的行政命令是否會嘗試讓其對第14修正案的理解具有追溯適用效力。最高法院已經(jīng)表示，取消公民身份會帶來特殊的問題。
“The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship,” the court said in Afroyim v. Rusk, a 1967 decision that struck down a federal law canceling the citizenship of people who voted in foreign elections.
“基于我們自由政府的本質(zhì)，一群短暫執(zhí)政的公民剝奪另一群公民身份的做法，是完全不符合法治精神的，”最高法院在阿弗羅伊姆訴魯斯克(Afroyim v. Rusk)一案中說。1967年的這項(xiàng)判決推翻了一項(xiàng)聯(lián)邦法律，該法律要取消在國外選舉中投過票的人的公民身份。
“We hold that the 14th Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race,” the court said. “Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.”
“我們認(rèn)為，第14修正案的目的是——而且確實(shí)是——保護(hù)這個(gè)國家的每個(gè)公民不被國會強(qiáng)制取消公民身份，無論其信仰、膚色、種族為何，”最高法院說。“我們的裁決不過是給予這名公民留在一個(gè)自由國家的憲法權(quán)利，除非其自愿放棄公民身份。”
There may be good policy arguments for doing away with birthright citizenship, but most legal scholars say it would take a constitutional amendment to do so. In his 1995 testimony, Mr. Dellinger said that a federal statute would not do, meaning that the executive order discussed by Mr. Trump would certainly not suffice.
廢除出生公民權(quán)或許有好的政策論據(jù)，但大多數(shù)法律學(xué)者都認(rèn)為，需要通過憲法修正案才能做到這一點(diǎn)。在1995年的證詞中，德林杰說，聯(lián)邦法規(guī)是不夠的，這意味著特朗普所說的行政命令是滿足不了要求的。
“Because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution,” he said.
“由于在美國出生獲得公民身份是憲法規(guī)定的，所以它不可能通過立法來改變，而只能通過修憲來完成，”他說。
He added that history has lessons to teach. “From our experience with Dred Scott,” Mr. Dellinger said, “we had learned that our country should never again trust to judges or politicians the power to deprive from a class born on our soil the right of citizenship.”
他還補(bǔ)充說，歷史上有過經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)。“從我們在德雷德·斯科特(Dred Scott)一案的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，”德林杰說，“我們認(rèn)識到，我們的國家再也不應(yīng)該相信法官或者政客有權(quán)剝奪生于這片土地上的人獲得公民身份的權(quán)利。”
