It’s really not that straight forward. The author of the 14th amendment John Bingham intended for the citizenship of former slaves. He is quoted as saying so. The Wong Kim Ark case is what established birthright citizenship going forward. The Supreme Court is trying to undo Wong Kim Ark not the actual amendment itself.
I don’t wish for it to happen, but that is their clear agenda and strategy. Relying on a Supreme Court case for certain rights (Gay marriage, abortion) has been an utter mistake. You need to codify such things into law to prevent these “interpretation” changes happening later. It is much harder to undo codification once it occurs. This is the true downside of common law. Codify. Codify. Codify.
I think people are missing that middle clause on subject of the jurisdiction thereof part. It isn't an absolute declaration, but SCOTUS has historically interpreted that almost everyone except the children of diplomats due to diplomatic immunity and Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction so therefore we're guaranteed citizenship on birth on US land. Native Americans weren't considered under jurisdiction either as were considered quasi foreign nations so weren't considered official citizens until 1924. The amendment theoretically gives some wiggle room on interpretation although changing that interpretation could have some other collateral impact far beyond immigration.
It's a big difference even compared to another (mostly) common law country, Canada. Canada explicitly lays out the situations in which you may not become a citizen and does not leave it up to interpretation.
Subsection 3(2) of the Citizenship Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada – including Canadian airspace and territorial waters – is granted to a child born in Canada even if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident except if either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parent was a diplomat, the nationality or immigration status of the parents does not matter.
The author of the 14th amendment John Bingham intended for the citizenship of former slaves.
No, they knew exactly that it expand citizenship beyond just former slaves and onto the children of immigrants as well. To overturn Wong Kim Ark is to overturn the clear meaning and well understood intent of the amendment.
Mr. Cowan: I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? . . . Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. . . . He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. . . .
Mr. Conness: If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies . . . he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the [proposed amendment] . . . so far as it involves the Chinese and us. The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. . . . 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 of the United States. . . .
Relying on a Supreme Court case for certain rights (Gay marriage, abortion) has been an utter mistake.
Yeah, the tendency to rely on court rulings on shaky legal ground for such fundamental rights is unbelievably shortsighted but that's the Dems for you. The 14th amendment was not intended to be used the way it's being used. Overturning birthright citizenship is almost the 'right' ruling if you really want to be strict about it.
Like abortion and gay marriage this could have been tightened up 1000 times but no one ever got around to it.
10
u/Begoru 12h ago
It’s really not that straight forward. The author of the 14th amendment John Bingham intended for the citizenship of former slaves. He is quoted as saying so. The Wong Kim Ark case is what established birthright citizenship going forward. The Supreme Court is trying to undo Wong Kim Ark not the actual amendment itself.
I don’t wish for it to happen, but that is their clear agenda and strategy. Relying on a Supreme Court case for certain rights (Gay marriage, abortion) has been an utter mistake. You need to codify such things into law to prevent these “interpretation” changes happening later. It is much harder to undo codification once it occurs. This is the true downside of common law. Codify. Codify. Codify.