Birthright Citizenship: If They Ain’t White, It Ain’t Right

 

Birthright Citizenship: If They Ain’t White, It Ain’t Right

They Shall Not Replace Us

“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.” 

Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (July 9, 1868)

Let’s start with a little historical perspective via U.S. Constitution.net (May 2, 2014): “As the Civil War drew to a close, the Union grappled with how best to integrate millions of newly freed slaves into the American social, economic, and political frameworks. The Radical Republicans in Congress during Reconstruction played a pivotal role in framing and passing the 14th Amendment. They sought to counteract the Black Codes, which were laws passed throughout the South that severely restricted African Americans’ new freedoms.

“Significantly, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment overrode the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which held that African Americans could not be American citizens, whether enslaved or free. Under the new amendment, citizenship was granted to ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States,’ a direct response to former slaves’ uncertain status.

“Once adopted, the 14th Amendment became a foundational text for future civil rights advancements in the US. Its Equal Protection Clause has been fundamental in various landmark Supreme Court decisions including Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which ended racial segregation in public schools…

“One of the landmark Supreme Court cases that deeply dissected this clause was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China, but had established a permanent domicile and residence in the United States. The case arose when Wong was denied re-entry into the United States after a trip abroad, under laws that restricted Chinese immigration at the time… The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed Wong’s citizenship by birth, interpreting the jurisdictional clause as implying that anyone born on American soil, excluding children of foreign diplomats or [other official capacity under a foreign government].”

So here we are today with a President who simply believes that above-cited provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the way the post-Civil War constitutional amendment has been interpreted and applied since it was passed, are wrong. And if it cannot be severely limited into meaninglessness by a “almost anything you want Mr President” Supreme Court, can the Court hand the President an interpretation of this amendment that creates a Swiss cheese of holes so he can exclude children (particularly from those “shithole” countries) mostly likely to have a skin tone that is less than a pristine white? I have to add, this practice of avoiding the burdensome amendment process by having sycophantic justices grant the same effect by fiat, has to be contained. But after oral arguments before the Supreme Court, those same rightwing justices seemed poised to accommodate the severe and highly restrictive interpretation of this clause that Trump wants.

Robert Alexander, writing for the December 10th Newsweek, explains the case at bar: “The Supreme Court is preparing to hear Trump vs. Washington, a case that could redefine the constitutional meaning of birthright citizenship for the first time in more than a century.

At issue is President Donald Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which instructs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the United States to “temporary visitors and illegal aliens” if their birth occurs more than 30 days after the order takes effect.

“The court’s decision will determine not only the legal status of children born to undocumented or temporary status parents, but also the constitutional boundaries of who belongs in the American political community… At stake is whether a president can unilaterally narrow the Citizenship Clause—an action that multiple lower courts have said contradicts more than a century of precedent.

“The ruling will shape immigration policy, define the limits of executive power, and decide whether the United States continues its historically broad interpretation of jus soli—Latin for ‘right of the soil,’ the principle that a person becomes a citizen simply by being born within a country’s territory… The alternative is a significantly more restrictive model that could alter the nation’s demographic and constitutional landscape for generations.”

So, what happens to such children now (adding in genuine immigrants who are here, properly and successfully applying for citizenship)? This level of cruelty will be inflicted on innocent children (many grown into adulthood as US citizens) if the Court supports Trump’s hateful de facto amendment to the Constitution.

I’m Peter Dekom, and a wildly unpopular President, ignoring polls and recent special election results, is pushing the United States into an autocracy of rule by law (as created by Trump and his henchmen) vs one where there is equal rule of law under constitutional and statutory restraints set through the democratic process that has governed the United States since the Declaration of Independence.