Unit 6 Citizenship In American History And: Fill & Download for Free

Would a Trump executive order ending birthright citizenship violate the 14th Amendment?Oh, hell yes, Glenn R. Anderson.The fact that the people pushing this notion that it doesn’t are also the same folks constantly pushing “textual originalism” that we must interpret the Constitution as written in 1789 stretches irony to the breaking point.The Founding Fathers and Early U.S. HistoryWhen the Constitution was written, the United States essentially ported over the English common law system, including many of the English decisions and precedent.At the time the Constitution was drafted in 1789, there were two primary legal theories for how a child inherited allegiance to a particular nation, such as being a subject of a monarch, or a citizen of a popular sovereignty nation.The first theory is jus soli, or “right of soil.” This means that citizenship is a function of the place where a child is born. There are a few exceptions to this, including diplomats or foreign dignitaries present in a nation where they do not normally reside.The second theory is jus sanguinis, or “right of blood.” This makes citizenship a function of parentage. If one or both parents are citizens of the nation, then the child inherits citizenship. Countries that follow this sometimes extend it several generations; many European Union countries that follow this allow automatic citizenship to children of citizens and permissive citizenship upon application out to typically grandchildren and occasionally great-grandchildren.The English monarchy firmly took the side of jus soli. Anyone other than the children of foreign dignitaries and diplomats born on soil occupied by the British Empire were subjects of the crown and owed the King fealty.When the United States was founded and the Constitution written, this was well-entrenched in English common law and the concept was included in American common law as well. It was taken as such a given that the New York state court decision Lynch v. Clarke in 1844 was somewhat incredulous that it was even being brought up, making clear that jus soli citizenship is the law of the land, even where a child was born to immigrant parents and subsequently left the United States never to return.Post-Civil War SouthIn 1868, when the 14th Amendment was drafted, the Civil War had just ended and Reconstruction was beginning. The Southern states were still being excluded from congressional representation.First, it’s important to note that the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford had not yet been overruled. Dred Scott held that black people, even freed blacks, could not be citizens of the United States.There was also the matter of the decision in Barron v. Baltimore that stated that the Federal Constitution did not apply to the individual States except where expressly stated. Because of these two decisions, States could abridge free speech, free press, perform searches on black homes without legal recourse, lynch blacks that stepped out of line, and more.That’s why after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment, Southern states immediately moved to adopt “black codes” that severely restricted the rights of the newly freed blacks so as to essentially place them back in at least the social standing of slavery. White Southerners passed laws restricting the rights of blacks to own real or personal property, to form contracts (meaning whites couldn’t be bound to contracts entered into with blacks,) and instituting severely harsher criminal penalties - essentially jaywalking could get you a death sentence.These “black codes” were justified under the theory that blacks were not citizens either of the individual States nor of the United States, and therefore entitled to no rights under the either the federal or various state constitutions.Essentially, the former Confederate states were attempting to go back to some form of slavery, or at the very least end up doing a lot of racial discriminating, by essentially stripping people of their state citizenship. That was precisely what was happening in the post-Civil War years.If jus sanguinis citizenship was the law, that meant that even if Dred Scott were ever overturned, no black child would ever become a citizen by birth and would have to apply to be naturalized, which Congress could prohibit, and if the former Confederate states were allowed to hold state citizenship separate from federal citizenship, they could continue to essentially recreate slavery in all but name.In response, the northern Republican-controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which would have granted full citizenship to all former slaves and essentially to all people currently in the United States (except untaxed Native Americans.)The Southern states fought it bitterly, contesting the constitutional basis of its passage. President Andrew Johnson agreed, and vetoed the law.Enraged by this, Congressional Republicans drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, and in particular the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, both of which are expressly targeted at the individual States themselves. They required ratification of this amendment as part of the Southern re-entry into congressional representation.This guaranteed jus soli citizenship to everyone in the United States by virtue of having been born here as a means of overruling Dred Scott, and making United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative of United States citizenship, so that states couldn’t continue these “black codes” on the justification of those people not being citizens of the state.Edit 11/1/18: A number of people have been posting Senator Howard’s transcript from the debate at the time, noting correctly that Senator Howard was the one who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment in the Senate.The highlighted bit is what’s going around.Read the entire bit above the highlighted portion.Specifically:I do not propose to say anything on the subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation. 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.The question of citizenship had been, according to Senator Howard, completely agreed upon, and the understanding of the law of citizenship by birth in the nation at the time was… wait for it…jus soli.Please stop spamming my comments with it now, mmmkay?Cases Interpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentIn the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned in dicta that “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States” would not be subject to the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, referencing the long-understood common law exceptions to jus soli, not of jus sanguinis.Shortly thereafter, Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) held that Native Americans were not eligible for jus soli citizenship by virtue of the unique and special relationship of Native American tribes to the United States Federal Government. This was later overruled by statute with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, though U.S. citizenship had been slowly started to be extended to Native Americans in the late 19th century and through the early 20th century before it.The most definitive court case on the subject is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that a person who is born in the United States, of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power, whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject is considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a citizen of the United States by birth under the 14th Amendment.The lawful or unlawful immigration status of the parents was not the issue that Wong Kim Ark turned on. In fact, it was precisely whether to adopt a view of whether parentage was even something to consider or not that was central to the case.The case specifically turned on whether the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment referred specifically to the concept of jus sanguinis or whether it referred more broadly to the longstanding concept of jus soli.Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled 6–2 that jus soli was the longstanding tradition of the United States and was the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Gray wrote a lengthy opinion that covered the history of citizenship in the United States and Western civilization to come to that conclusion.This case still controls today.Some conservative commentators have suggested that Wong Kim Ark does not control today because the parents were legal immigrants; their argument being that Trump’s executive order would only apply to children of illegal immigrants.This likewise holds no merit whatsoever.First, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and when Wong Kim Ark was decided, the concept of a lawful permanent resident as we understand it today was significantly different. There were relatively few immigration laws and they mostly regarded to what kinds of ethnic groups and nationalities the United States wanted to stick a big “KEEP OUT” sign up about.Second, the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment reads “all persons born in the United States,” not “all children of lawful permanent residents born in the United States.” This is unambiguous.The Supreme Court has further ruled that the 14th Amendment’s other important clauses, the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, do apply to immigrants regardless of their legal status in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Specifically:No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.Even the dissenting opinions adopted this specific principle, even when they disagreed with what the result of the case should be.(h/t to Rajan Bhavnani for pointing this out for me.)The Heritage FoundationIt was nearly a century after Wong Kim Ark was decided that conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation began peddling the narrative that jus sanguinis was really what the drafters of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment had in mind, despite all legislative history and debate to the contrary. In the 1990’s, various conservatives, generally on the fringes of the Republican Party (ironically, the same party that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment in the first place 125 years prior) started to question whether Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided amidst the debate over undocumented immigration.This was where the concept of “anchor babies” and other pejorative terms for children born in the United States to immigrants present without lawful status started to come in.It’s little wonder that a President who has used borderline racism and dog-whistle rhetoric for much of his adult life, including his term in office, is drawn to this nationalist philosophy that has only ever historically in this nation been used to exclude non-white individuals from U.S. citizenship.This fringe movement has gained some steam in recent years among various conservative circles, but the vast majority of non-partisan legal scholarship agrees that Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided, and that it clearly adopts the view that jus soli was always a part of the American system of citizenship, and explicitly codified in the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment.Bottom LineUnless the Supreme Court overturns Wong Kim Ark, which there is little reason to believe it actually will outside of some wishful thinking on the part of some fringe legal conservatives and irrational fears of certain liberals who see a court dominated by more conservative-leaning judges acting in lockstep with a particular agenda, Trump’s threatened executive order is nothing more than a blatant attempt to amend the Constitution by executive fiat.Whoever has advised Trump that this is possible shows a complete lack of regard for more than 225 years of history, jurisprudence and legal scholarship on the matter in the United States.Standard addendum: I anticipate this will start to bring out a certain segment of the population.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, etcetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.And, as Mr. Russ-Navarro just found out, if I deleted your comment because I felt it was over the line, but didn’t airlock you, that means, in the parlance of my industry, it’s been “dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend the complaint.” However, if you just keep posting the same thing, and you start spamming my comments with it over and over, you’ll be given a free one-way ticket out the airlock, where you can howl at the void to your heart’s delight.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes.Debate responsibly.

You must first obtain permanent resident status in the US, which a can be obtained by an application. To qualify, you must hold a legal immigrant visa and be sponsored by a family member who is a US citizen, be sponsored by a company operating within the US, or have been granted political asylum in the US. There are a couple of other programs that are more rarely used (for example, an owner of a company that employs at least 40 full-time workers in the US can get a special application). Note that you can be disqualified for all sorts of reasons too (certain diseases, criminal offenses, etc.)After you get permanent residency, you must reside in the US for 5 years.After 5 years, if you are 18 years old, or older, you can file a form N-400 application with the Department of Homeland Security in the state where you reside (you must have lived there for at least 90 days prior to applying).You will need to show that you've lived in the US for those 5 years (you can travel, but you cannot be gone for more than 6 months in a year). You must reside in the US during the application process (you can travel, but there are limits on how long and there are forms to file if you do). You must be able to demonstrate to an examiner an ability to read, write, and speak English -- and you will take a brief exam on US history and government, administered in English. Lastly, the law requires that you "be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States" (namely, if there's evidence that you are a criminal or have bad intent, you can be disqualified).After the application is processed and the exam is passed, your case worker will arrange for you to take part in a swearing in ceremony as a US citizen. You will be required to take an oath whereby you promise to uphold and defend the constitution, renounce you allegience to foreign governments, and that you will obey the law.Following the naturalization ceremony, you would be a US citizen in every respect EXCEPT that you will not be permitted to serve as President or Vice-president of the United States.

I'll give you my top ten.1: Abraham Lincoln - He kept the Union together, helped end slavery, improved national infrastructure, and passed the Homestead Act and the Morrill Act. In my opinion, his only two failures was that, while he detested slavery, his civil rights record was deplorable. Also, he did unconstitutionally overstep his boundaries from time to time, but try to find a president that hasn't.2: Thomas Jefferson - One, he helped found the country and draft the constitution. Two, he drastically increased the size of the U.S. by peaceful means, which was rare in that era. Three, he lowered taxes and also lowered the national debt. On top of it all, he also opposed slavery, and was one of the first major proponents of free public education. His only two failures was that he hypocritically owned slaves, and that he held pretty unrealistic economic views.3: John Quincy Adams - He lowered the national debt, improved national infrastructure, expanded trade, protected Native Americans, drafted the Monroe Doctrine, and opposed slavery. His only three failures was that he raised tariffs, ran a pretty nasty election campaign (I mean, we're talking 2016 nasty), and was a pretty ineffective leader.4: James Monroe - He expanded trade, admitted five states to the union, improved national infrastructure, and encouraged the decline of parties. I mean, he reigned during an era called the “Era of Good Feelings.” He was pretty popular. His only failures was that he raised tariffs, and oversaw an invasion of modern-day Florida.5: George Washington - Like Jefferson, he helped found the country. He helped create the Navy, added five states to the union, helped ease tensions with Britain, and warned against foreign entanglements. His only failure was that he supported the expansion of slavery.6: Franklin Roosevelt - He created Social Security, ended Prohibition, signed Glass-Steagall into law, signed the Wagner Act into law, improved national infrastructure, helped protect Native Americans, eased tensions with South America, helped found the U.N., and, on top of it all, helped save the world from the Nazis. His failures were that he prolonged the Great Depression, tried to stack the Supreme Court, arrested innocent Japanese civilians, more or less ended the gold standard, and failed to protect Jewish refugees fleeing Europe. While he had his dark sides, his accomplishments were immensely important.7: Theodore Roosevelt - He broke up monopolies, helped end the Russo-Japanese War, added a state to the union, supported strong labor laws, conserved natural resources, expanded national parks, and strengthened the Navy. His main failure was that he intervened heavily in Latin America, which still haunts the world today.8: John F. Kennedy - He supported civil rights, helped prevent a nuclear war, signed the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, desegregated public schools, created the Peace Corps, raised the minimum wage, cut taxes, expanded Social Security, expanded NASA, rejected Operation Northwoods, wished to withdraw from Vietnam, and oversaw a great economy. His main failure was the Bay of Pigs, which caused the Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place. He also initially expanded the War in Vietnam, and also had many affairs.9: Calvin Coolidge - He signed the Indian Citizenship Act into law, supported civil rights, cut taxes, lowered the national debt, oversaw a great economy, eased tensions with South America and Mexico, and supported the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which outlawed war. His only failure was that his policies helped contribute to the stock market crash of ‘29, which would later turn into the Great Depression thanks to Hoover, Roosevelt, and the Federal Reserve.10: Dwight Eisenhower - He launched the Interstate Highway System, helped suspend the Korean War, added two states to the union, supported civil rights, desegregated public schools, created NASA, expanded Social Security, raised the minimum wage, balanced the budget three times, warned against the military-industrial complex, and oversaw a great economy. His failures were that he was the first to get us involved in Vietnam, he intensified the Cold War, he helped overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala, and oversaw Operation Wetback.Some runner-ups would be Jimmy Carter, Uylsses Grant, and Chester Arthur.