The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to enforce an executive order signed by President Donald Trump ending birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States. In a trio of near-identical filings by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, the administration urged the justices to partially block preliminary injunctions, issued by federal district judges in Seattle, Maryland, and Massachusetts, that bar the government from implementing Trump’s executive order anywhere in the country.
I know this move isn’t made in good faith. But what if it was?
It would mean that ALL “Americans” would need to go back to the place they came from, by their definition.
EDIT - I just noticed it was adopted in 1868. This didn’t have to do with trying to revoke the former slaves’ citizenship, did it?
Nah its actually what granted citizenship.
Property isn’t a citizen, and freeing the slaves didn’t make them citizens.
Before this amendment, the supreme court had ruled that black people “were never intended” to be citizens under the constitution.
During the rebuilding of the US after the civil war, this got added, so that that nonsense ruling (which was argued against, even then, since there was no such phrasing in the constitution) had no power. Instead, being born in the US was enough, which was true for basically every freed slave at that point in history.
So they were officially not citizens, in the whole nation, just before the civil war. Then they were freed by the 13th amendment, and made citizens in this one, and then the 15th protected the right to vote regardless of race or other things.
Thanks for that reply. I don’t have anything to add, just appreciate that.
So doesn’t it stand to reason that the amendment initially was intended for slaves, whose parents were citizens of another country before being enslaved?
Most slaves parents were also born here, at that point in time.
So it’s incorrect to think of them as citizens of any country, at the time.
The amendment was primarily for slaves, yes. I responded with a nah because the comment above mine asked if this was a ploy to remove their citizenship in some way. It wasn’t, the supreme court had their own racist ploy for that.
Your assumption is incorrect; birthright citizenship is not the only way to become a citizen. Those who are naturalized through means other than by birthright, and all of their offspring, wouldn’t be affected.
For example, my wife became a citizen after immigrating here. Her daughter, born after my wife was naturalized, would be a citizen automatically because she was born to a citizen. Birthright citizenship is not a factor in this example.
Likewise, I would not be affected as my ancestors naturalized through whatever process existed back then, not birthright citizenship. Their children (my great grandparents) weren’t citizens because they were born in the US, they were citizens because their parents were citizens.
Is there anything in law that states a child is a citizen through something other than birthright citizenship? I don’t believe that every country grants citizenship to children automatically.
There’s basically two methods worldwide for children to become citizens easily - you’re born there, or your parents are citizens from there.
You’re born there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Your parents are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
Thanks - I’m still trying to figure out what it all means
The real issue is “subject to the jurisdiction”.
People “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law are constitutionally guaranteed a number of rights. Importantly, they are afforded due process, and all other rights due someone accused of a crime.
Not everyone is guaranteed 5th amendment protections. In a “Red Dawn” situation, where the Russians/North Koreans launch an airborne invasion of the US, those enemy combatants are not subject to US laws; they are not guaranteed the rights of the criminally accused.
Any rights and privileges they have are conveyed via treaty, not constitution. Hague Convention. Geneva Conventions. Laws of Armed Conflict. None of these guarantee “Due Process”. None of these guarantee access to the judicial system.
One more piece of the puzzle: The Posse Commitatus Act. This law prohibits the US military, (and the National Guard, when federalized) from directly engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.
Trump wants to use the military to handle immigration issues.
Texas has already declared immigrants to be “invaders”. Trump’s campaign was not using hyperbole when it was talking about an “invasion”.
Trump wants a “war”. He wants a shooting war on the southern border, and he’s going to use the immigrant “invasion” to justify it.
It still wouldn’t mean that all Americans would have to go back. You can become a citizen without being born here.
yeah, i’m learning a lot tonight about how special Americans think they are.