Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains
Birth Right Citizenship and the 14th Amendment
I wrote about this a year ago. Dr. Caiati’s comments are well worth your time.
2 thoughts on “Birth Right Citizenship and the 14th Amendment”
Bill,
On this matter, the brilliant dissent of Justice Thomas in Trump v. Barbara provides irrefutable historical evidence that “Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. [And that] Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States” (62). * In particular, your readers would benefit from a consideration of the justice’s rigorous demonstration that citizenship, both before and after the Civil War, was intrinsically tied to domicile. [On this, see especially, pages 66-99 of the record].
Here, it is worth quoting a bit more from Justice Thomas’ introductory remarks:
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority. They ‘fought and bled in the same battles,’ ‘gained and gloried in the same victories,’ and were ‘liable to be called upon to defend [America] in time of war’ alongside every other citizen. … The Citizenship Clause thus guaranteed them the ‘dignity and glory of American citizenship,’ so as to ensure that they would never be treated as second class under the law….
The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war. Americans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home. Accordingly, domicile—a person’s legal home—played a key role in both state and national citizenship in America. A person was a ‘citizen’ of the state where he had his ‘domicil.’ … When foreigners temporarily visited, their ‘national character’ was unchanged. … A person born here but domiciled in a foreign land was therefore considered ‘as much a stranger to the country as his father’….”
This is a very important point. This splitting of the loyalties (or homeland) is what hampers assimilation (into better systems) and the oneness of purpose and values that allows for a functioning nation. It is complicating things the world over.
Bill,
On this matter, the brilliant dissent of Justice Thomas in Trump v. Barbara provides irrefutable historical evidence that “Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. [And that] Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States” (62). * In particular, your readers would benefit from a consideration of the justice’s rigorous demonstration that citizenship, both before and after the Civil War, was intrinsically tied to domicile. [On this, see especially, pages 66-99 of the record].
Here, it is worth quoting a bit more from Justice Thomas’ introductory remarks:
“Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority. They ‘fought and bled in the same battles,’ ‘gained and gloried in the same victories,’ and were ‘liable to be called upon to defend [America] in time of war’ alongside every other citizen. … The Citizenship Clause thus guaranteed them the ‘dignity and glory of American citizenship,’ so as to ensure that they would never be treated as second class under the law….
The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war. Americans, consistent with their settler ethos, believed that citizens were the people who called a place home. Accordingly, domicile—a person’s legal home—played a key role in both state and national citizenship in America. A person was a ‘citizen’ of the state where he had his ‘domicil.’ … When foreigners temporarily visited, their ‘national character’ was unchanged. … A person born here but domiciled in a foreign land was therefore considered ‘as much a stranger to the country as his father’….”
Vito
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf
This is a very important point. This splitting of the loyalties (or homeland) is what hampers assimilation (into better systems) and the oneness of purpose and values that allows for a functioning nation. It is complicating things the world over.