A relevant question was asked on r/askHistorians: "Is there historical evidence that birthright citizenship was practiced in America prior to 14A?" The short answer is, yes, it was an common law...
The short answer is, yes, it was an common law principle even before the 14th. For those who are curious, worth checking out the answer and comment chain I linked. It's pretty in-depth.
A federal judge on Thursday issued a two-week restraining order blocking the Trump administration from moving forward on an effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors, calling the directive “blatantly unconstitutional.”
...
In the coming days, legal experts said, Coughenour could seek to extend the temporary restraining order or issue a preliminary injunction that would put the executive order on pause as the case is adjudicated in his courtroom. The issue could ultimately land in the Supreme Court, whose conservative justices outnumber liberals, 6-3.
It's such a blatantly unconstitutional order that is egregiously arguing in bad faith to try and twist the meaning of the amendment. Normally I'd think with how straightforward the amendment and...
It's such a blatantly unconstitutional order that is egregiously arguing in bad faith to try and twist the meaning of the amendment. Normally I'd think with how straightforward the amendment and precedent is I'd be unconcerned about this holding up, but the state of our current supreme court just absolutely terrifies me, since this is likely to land on their desk and we have no idea how they will rule.
You can argue all day whether or not birthright citizenship should still be a thing in the United States. But if you want to get rid of it, take the proper channels to propose a constitutional amendment. Stop trying to circumvent the constitution in bad faith through executive orders.
IMHO the EO was always expected to go to SCOTUS, where they'll reverse Wong Kim Ark, make this retroactive (because without Wong Kim Ark, the EO isn't even necessary), and ensure that no future...
IMHO the EO was always expected to go to SCOTUS, where they'll reverse Wong Kim Ark, make this retroactive (because without Wong Kim Ark, the EO isn't even necessary), and ensure that no future law could overrule them short of a Constitutional Amendment.
Fun fact, by my understanding of the fallback in the absence of WKA, dual citizens would also be automatically excluded since they are "subject to a foreign power". That includes me.
That kind of ruling would break so many processes we rely on. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that you're bound by the laws of the United States. Right now, it doesn't matter how you...
That kind of ruling would break so many processes we rely on. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that you're bound by the laws of the United States. Right now, it doesn't matter how you got here, if you do something illegal, you'll be prosecuted by a US court, and if found guilty, punished by the US penal system.
The only way I can see upholding this order is by arguing that immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which would mean they'd effectively have diplomatic immunity. I don't see a conservative supreme court ruling that illegal immigrants are unable to be prosecuted for any crime they commit within the US.
Retroactive would be insane. Last time I checked, there are like 30-40mil "second generation immigrant" Americans (ie native-born children of immigrants) in the US. Sure, some of them may have...
Retroactive would be insane. Last time I checked, there are like 30-40mil "second generation immigrant" Americans (ie native-born children of immigrants) in the US. Sure, some of them may have been born to already-naturalized citizens. For example, my younger brother was born to at least one US citizen. But not me; our parents weren't yet naturalized.
Anyway, many second gen immigrants I know around my age, especially Asians such as myself, were born to parents who weren't yet citizens. Even if only if a quarter are affected, that's still 7.5-10mil people affected.
But that's the thing with this right? It's push it as far as possible (such as demanding it be retroactive), then the "compromise" is "OK, it'll only apply going forward." Cool, phew, I'm good then! No worries! Not my problem anymore! Typical American mentality.
When really, it would still be a travesty and we should still be worried.
I'm currently trying to find a short story I read this past year (I think) that touched on the retroactive revocation of citizenship and it involved people trying to prove their ancestry (often to...
I'm currently trying to find a short story I read this past year (I think) that touched on the retroactive revocation of citizenship and it involved people trying to prove their ancestry (often to a white ancestor, but it's been a minute) and yeah... It's not good
Citizenship is supposed to be irrevocable from your government. They should sooner imprison you for life than take that away from you. So if they take away citizenship from Americans retroactively...
Citizenship is supposed to be irrevocable from your government. They should sooner imprison you for life than take that away from you. So if they take away citizenship from Americans retroactively because of their race or origin I don’t see why they wouldn’t eventually take away citizenship from people they don’t want to vote. I’m a descendent of multiple Mayflower passengers. I’m related to multiple (dead) US presidents. But I could see Trump taking away my citizenship because I’m “woke” or whatever.
Retroactive? As in they're going to strip people of their citizenship? And if they're overturning Wong Kim Ark, does that mean they're going to strip legal Chinese immigrants' citizenship too?
Retroactive? As in they're going to strip people of their citizenship? And if they're overturning Wong Kim Ark, does that mean they're going to strip legal Chinese immigrants' citizenship too?
Yeah this is their playbook. Specifically design a law or EO they know will get challenged so they can have it go to the supreme court which they know favors them. It's appalling.
Yeah this is their playbook. Specifically design a law or EO they know will get challenged so they can have it go to the supreme court which they know favors them. It's appalling.
There are two scenarios to consider: the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of birthright citizenship, or they restrict it somehow. While we should keep both in mind, I'd still bet on the...
There are two scenarios to consider: the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of birthright citizenship, or they restrict it somehow.
While we should keep both in mind, I'd still bet on the Supreme Court upholding birthright citizenship. Other than Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court justices don't seem crazy like Trump, and they don't need to do what he says.
If they do rule partially in Trump's favor, I'd guess it would be a fairly limited ruling that largely leaves the status quo in place.
I'm mostly going on legal history and vibes, though. A legal expert who watches the Supreme Court more closely would be a better person to ask. The people who say, "that's it, the Supreme Court could do anything now" can be ignored - what do they know?
Trump and his MAGA isolationist movement achieved a hostile takeover of the Republican party in 2016. The heritage foundation was already active and has or had its own priorities for judges. (This...
Trump and his MAGA isolationist movement achieved a hostile takeover of the Republican party in 2016. The heritage foundation was already active and has or had its own priorities for judges. (This included stripping abortion rights). Trump has enabled and promoted heritage foundation judicial appointments. To the best of my knowledge, we really don't know to what extent these judges will enable MAGA's worst fantasies and goals for the future of the US government.
I am confident that the justices consider themselves powerful political actors in their own right. Any move that strips power from the judiciary I would see as unlikely. They are also supposed to protect the coherence and consistency of our laws. I believe that they don't want to rule in ways that make them look ridiculous to other high status lawyers and law professors. However, they do have the right to make decisions that cause the country to change course. The Supreme Court can do nearly anything. What they will do is going to be limited to a certain extent by professional pride and by self interest and by a vision for the country that doesn't necessarily correlate one to one with MAGA.
Yes, I agree that they're able to rule any way they want. I meant to argue against the notion that because they could, they definitely will, and you've given a few reasons why some rulings are...
Yes, I agree that they're able to rule any way they want. I meant to argue against the notion that because they could, they definitely will, and you've given a few reasons why some rulings are unlikely.
A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to curb birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign visitors, a decision that is likely to mean the executive order will not take effect as planned later this month.
...
The injunction applies nationally and will remain in place as the case is adjudicated. The Maryland lawsuit is one of at least six federal cases brought against Trump’s order by a total of 22 Democratic-led states and more than a half-dozen civil rights groups.
A relevant question was asked on r/askHistorians: "Is there historical evidence that birthright citizenship was practiced in America prior to 14A?"
The short answer is, yes, it was an common law principle even before the 14th. For those who are curious, worth checking out the answer and comment chain I linked. It's pretty in-depth.
From the article:
...
It's such a blatantly unconstitutional order that is egregiously arguing in bad faith to try and twist the meaning of the amendment. Normally I'd think with how straightforward the amendment and precedent is I'd be unconcerned about this holding up, but the state of our current supreme court just absolutely terrifies me, since this is likely to land on their desk and we have no idea how they will rule.
You can argue all day whether or not birthright citizenship should still be a thing in the United States. But if you want to get rid of it, take the proper channels to propose a constitutional amendment. Stop trying to circumvent the constitution in bad faith through executive orders.
IMHO the EO was always expected to go to SCOTUS, where they'll reverse Wong Kim Ark, make this retroactive (because without Wong Kim Ark, the EO isn't even necessary), and ensure that no future law could overrule them short of a Constitutional Amendment.
Fun fact, by my understanding of the fallback in the absence of WKA, dual citizens would also be automatically excluded since they are "subject to a foreign power". That includes me.
That kind of ruling would break so many processes we rely on. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that you're bound by the laws of the United States. Right now, it doesn't matter how you got here, if you do something illegal, you'll be prosecuted by a US court, and if found guilty, punished by the US penal system.
The only way I can see upholding this order is by arguing that immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which would mean they'd effectively have diplomatic immunity. I don't see a conservative supreme court ruling that illegal immigrants are unable to be prosecuted for any crime they commit within the US.
Retroactive would be insane. Last time I checked, there are like 30-40mil "second generation immigrant" Americans (ie native-born children of immigrants) in the US. Sure, some of them may have been born to already-naturalized citizens. For example, my younger brother was born to at least one US citizen. But not me; our parents weren't yet naturalized.
Anyway, many second gen immigrants I know around my age, especially Asians such as myself, were born to parents who weren't yet citizens. Even if only if a quarter are affected, that's still 7.5-10mil people affected.
But that's the thing with this right? It's push it as far as possible (such as demanding it be retroactive), then the "compromise" is "OK, it'll only apply going forward." Cool, phew, I'm good then! No worries! Not my problem anymore! Typical American mentality.
When really, it would still be a travesty and we should still be worried.
I'm currently trying to find a short story I read this past year (I think) that touched on the retroactive revocation of citizenship and it involved people trying to prove their ancestry (often to a white ancestor, but it's been a minute) and yeah... It's not good
Citizenship is supposed to be irrevocable from your government. They should sooner imprison you for life than take that away from you. So if they take away citizenship from Americans retroactively because of their race or origin I don’t see why they wouldn’t eventually take away citizenship from people they don’t want to vote. I’m a descendent of multiple Mayflower passengers. I’m related to multiple (dead) US presidents. But I could see Trump taking away my citizenship because I’m “woke” or whatever.
Retroactive? As in they're going to strip people of their citizenship? And if they're overturning Wong Kim Ark, does that mean they're going to strip legal Chinese immigrants' citizenship too?
Nah, they'll say they were never really citizens to begin with.
Yeah this is their playbook. Specifically design a law or EO they know will get challenged so they can have it go to the supreme court which they know favors them. It's appalling.
There are two scenarios to consider: the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of birthright citizenship, or they restrict it somehow.
While we should keep both in mind, I'd still bet on the Supreme Court upholding birthright citizenship. Other than Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court justices don't seem crazy like Trump, and they don't need to do what he says.
If they do rule partially in Trump's favor, I'd guess it would be a fairly limited ruling that largely leaves the status quo in place.
I'm mostly going on legal history and vibes, though. A legal expert who watches the Supreme Court more closely would be a better person to ask. The people who say, "that's it, the Supreme Court could do anything now" can be ignored - what do they know?
Trump and his MAGA isolationist movement achieved a hostile takeover of the Republican party in 2016. The heritage foundation was already active and has or had its own priorities for judges. (This included stripping abortion rights). Trump has enabled and promoted heritage foundation judicial appointments. To the best of my knowledge, we really don't know to what extent these judges will enable MAGA's worst fantasies and goals for the future of the US government.
I am confident that the justices consider themselves powerful political actors in their own right. Any move that strips power from the judiciary I would see as unlikely. They are also supposed to protect the coherence and consistency of our laws. I believe that they don't want to rule in ways that make them look ridiculous to other high status lawyers and law professors. However, they do have the right to make decisions that cause the country to change course. The Supreme Court can do nearly anything. What they will do is going to be limited to a certain extent by professional pride and by self interest and by a vision for the country that doesn't necessarily correlate one to one with MAGA.
Yes, I agree that they're able to rule any way they want. I meant to argue against the notion that because they could, they definitely will, and you've given a few reasons why some rulings are unlikely.
Mirror: https://archive.is/4S2yn
Federal judge in Maryland blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order (Washington Post)
...