The 14th Amendment & Birthright Citizenship

[Big girl]

On 5/13/2025 at 6:46 PM, OlDawg said:

Obama ended the ‘dry foot’ policy as well while he was trying to play kissy face with communist Cuba.

Truth be told, he probably ended the policy because Cubans are generally conservative voters. They don’t fit into the race-baiting Democrat playbook.

That’s another very big reason why the authors of the 14th didn’t want birthplace citizenship. They spelled out ‘no foreigners.’ They wanted immigrants to assimilate before becoming a citizen.

Today, everyone wants to be a ‘something-American.’ No one says they’re just an American any more. No assimilation. People live in their own little silos with like kind—usually based on race.

I blame the racial politics of the Democratic Party. They’ve been splitting people apart by race since they began as a Party. It’s only gotten worse over time.

The writers didn't want it, yet they wrote it anyway?

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

The writers didn't want it, yet they wrote it anyway?

You just don’t get it, do you? Below is from the Congressional Record and what is being discussed as a backdrop issue of this specific case. Read the bolded. There is some evidence to support the thought that automatic citizenship wasn’t meant for the bolded below. For the first almost 80 years after the 14th Amendment was written, citizenship was treated differently than now. More recent tradition and practice for over a century says automatic citizenship for almost everyone. Tradition doesn’t necessarily make it correct. Also doesn’t make it incorrect.

I’m done discussing this with you and wasting my time. Just read the bolded below. It’s the words of the author of the 14th Amendment.

Sen. Jacob Howard, Republican of Michigan, proposed the Citizenship Clause and 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 on May 30, 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, Big girl said:

The writers didn't want it, yet they wrote it anyway?

You bring up a good point. They wrote it anyway? In other words, if it was written and ratified, there was a reason.

So let’s look at the at the citizenship clause.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Note that it does not say that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. They added the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

Like your question, they wrote it anyway? 

Was it merely a meaningless afterthought or did it mean something?

In the Supreme Court ruling in Elk, they said that the phrase certainly meant something. Basically it was who is your allegiance to or which country were you a part of? John Elk was born in US territory on American soil but since he was part of a recognized Indian Nation, so even though born in the US, was not a citizen. It took an act of Congress, not the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling, to make Native Americans, American.

So:

1. Was the phrase about being under the jurisdiction thereof just wasted words or did it have meaning?

2. Why didn’t the clause simply say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens”? That surely would have ended any debate. 

3. Looking at the Constitution and the meaning of words, just like you brought up, why did the Supreme Court deny John Elk citizenship? If it was so clear, it should have been an easy ruling for Elk, not against him. 

4. If it was so clear cut, why did it take decades later for the US Congress to make Native Americans all Americans as birthright citizens by federal law? 

[OlDawg]

8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You bring up a good point. They wrote it anyway? In other words, if it was written and ratified, there was a reason.

So let’s look at the at the citizenship clause.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Note that it does not say that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. They added the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

Like your question, they wrote it anyway? 

Was it merely a meaningless afterthought or did it mean something?

In the Supreme Court ruling in Elk, they said that the phrase certainly meant something. Basically it was who is your allegiance to or which country were you a part of? John Elk was born in US territory on American soil but since he was part of a recognized Indian Nation, so even though born in the US, was not a citizen. It took an act of Congress, not the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling, to make Native Americans, American.

So:

1. Was the phrase about being under the jurisdiction thereof just wasted words or did it have meaning?

2. Why didn’t the clause simply say, “all persons born in the United States are citizens”? That surely would have ended any debate. 

3. Looking at the Constitution and the meaning of words, just like you brought up, why did the Supreme Court deny John Elk citizenship? If it was so clear, it should have been an easy ruling for Elk, not against him. 

4. If it was so clear cut, why did it take decades later for the US Congress to make Native Americans all Americans as birthright citizens by federal law? 

More patience than me & I just saw I have a typo. Should be a 6 instead of an 8. ☺️

[OlDawg]

How the Executive Branch got this so different than the original readings is beyond me. I read exactly as @tvc184 has explained.

Best explanation I have seen without all the legalese in the briefs. In most cases, the interpretation closest in time to the original is the most accurate.

Whether SCOTUS rules this way or not is debatable. I think they’re going to need more time to rule on the actual merits. I wouldn’t be surprised if they just negated the previous injunctions, put one of their own on, and asked for further review before judging the merits. They have limited time before their break, and this is a very big decision.

On a side note, it would be typical if it was just some clerks way back when who decided it was too hard to keep track of everything, so they just started making everyone—except for a very limited few—be automatic citizens, and it just continued without anyone really questioning until recently.

 

[AggiesAreWe]