Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.​
By a 6-3 vote, the court struck down Trump’s order. A bare majority of five justices, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, makes a citizen of anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions,​
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”​


Should have been a unanimous verdict.






The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing "[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right in every state and territory in the United States."​
But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws.​
In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.”​
When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law “comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks” as citizens, and he noted that if “all persons who are native-born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” And if they weren’t already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law “to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States” when eleven southern states were not represented in Congress.​
When Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson’s admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined; it simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established their citizenship. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “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.”​

 

drbrumley

Well-known member
So just a quick question.......are diplomats from other countries who has a child born here while stationed here (i.e. the United Nations etc.), are their children automatically US citizens?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
L
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.​
By a 6-3 vote, the court struck down Trump’s order. A bare majority of five justices, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, makes a citizen of anyone born in the country, with very limited exceptions,​
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”​


Should have been a unanimous verdict.






The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing "[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right in every state and territory in the United States."​
But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws.​
In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.”​
When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law “comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks” as citizens, and he noted that if “all persons who are native-born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” And if they weren’t already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law “to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States” when eleven southern states were not represented in Congress.​
When Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson’s admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined; it simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established their citizenship. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “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.”​

So just a quick question.......are diplomats from other countries who has a child born here while stationed here (i.e. the United Nations etc.), are their children automatically US citizens?

An excellent question, one that exposes just how screwed we are with the decision.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I know what the arguments are pro and con. In this case Trump has it right as much as that pains me to say. BTW, nice to chat with you once again after all these years. Hope you are doing well.

I see it's been six years since you posted, it's nice to see you again. I do remember you, but I might not be remembering correctly that you're a libertarian? If so, how does your viewpoint square with the libertarian understanding of birthright citizenship?
Do you mind telling me why you're against it?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Well, I guess that depends on who you ask. Some said I was a libertarian, others a conservative, and some a liberal. Depends on the topic I guess. And sure, I would be happy to discuss why I'm against it.

I'm against it because the 14th amendment was written right after the War between the States for the slaves and their descendants. Indians were born in the country at that time, and they were never given this. That didn't happen till 1924. The premise in my view is "subject to" . I believe it to be misinterpreted in the courts for a long time. The parents of an anchor baby are still subject to the laws of this country (murder, theft, etc) but that nowhere means they are United States citizens. But it amazes me all the parent has to do is come over the border undetected, have a kid and wham like magic, instant citizenship.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Well, I guess that depends on who you ask. Some said I was a libertarian, others a conservative, and some a liberal. Depends on the topic I guess. And sure, I would be happy to discuss why I'm against it.

What do you say that you are? That's what counts.

I'm against it because the 14th amendment was written right after the War between the States for the slaves and their descendants. Indians were born in the country at that time, and they were never given this.

That's ironic, when you think about it. We took their land and then we decide when they have birthright citizenship?

But sticking to legalities, as my link above says:

Fourth, tribal lands are principally governed under tribal flags. In 1868, neither federal nor state law governed crimes committed on reservations by Indians against Indians. By contrast, Indians’ off-reservation offenses have always been fair game for federal and state authorities. (Today, babies born on tribal land are birthright citizens under a 1924 statute.)​
At the time of the 14th. amendment, Native American reservations being sovereign territory, they weren't "subject to." That was clearly a problem when a Native American who moved off the reservation was denied the right to vote, and was addressed in 1924, as it should have.

That didn't happen till 1924. The premise in my view is "subject to" . I believe it to be misinterpreted in the courts for a long time. The parents of an anchor baby are still subject to the laws of this country (murder, theft, etc) but that nowhere means they are United States citizens. But it amazes me all the parent has to do is come over the border undetected, have a kid and wham like magic, instant citizenship.

We're not talking about the parents, though. We're talking about their children. And when the children are born in the U.S., they're "subject to," and thus they are citizens.

I live close to the Mexican border. I think sometimes people forget how porous that border was for the first ~150 years of this country. How where I live used to be Mexican territory. How much it's part of our culture, and I don't think many here are looking to change that.
 
Top