Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
On Thursday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the order which had been slated to take effect on Feb. 19. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen.
This EO would require an ammendment to the consitution.
5 Likes
The administration is saying all the previous decisions are interpreting the amendment wrong.
The Justice Department then goes on to cite the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which predates the 14th Amendment by two years. The Justice Department attorneys specifically cite a section of the act that notes that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
The Trump administration then goes on to argue that the 14th Amendment’s language — the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — is best understood “to exclude the same individuals who were excluded by the Act —i.e., those who are ‘subject to any foreign power’ and ‘Indians not taxed.’”
I have been saying that 1866 Civil Rights act was going to come into play, but not in the way the administration is using it.
After this gets to the SCOTUS, the next amusing turn is what the court does with it. As we know, the Constitution prohibits “ex post facto” laws. The EO is supposed to take effect 30 days after the date of the EO, and only apply to people born after that date. What if the SCOTUS overturns all the precedents, based on their wrong interpretation of the amendment, and declares all people who had been deemed citizens under the flawed interpretation are no longer citizens?
Steve
The Court has already ruled on this “phrase” in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this key provision “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
In the Ruling the Supreme Court wrote “his parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” … “his parents were both Chinese citizens.” " Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen with no regard to the citizenship of his parents or where they reside.”
2 Likes
A previous SCOTUS said there was a “right to privacy” that allowed abortion. The current could said “no there isn’t” A previous court said a Texas sodomy law was OK. A later court said it wasn’t. At one time, the court said segregated “separate but equal” facilities were OK. We have learned, over the decades, anything can be relitigated to infinity.
Steve
5 Likes