A Short Primer on the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
24,042
Reaction score
47,800
Points
2,290
This is the historically accurate reason for the citizenship clause in the 14th.

After passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, former Confederate states said freed slaves may well be a United States citizen, but only a state could grant them state citizenship, and former Confederate states refused to grant [state] citizenship.

Further, Dred Scott was still the law of the land, thus freed slaves, all blacks in fact, could not be United States citizens either.

Thus, Congress added the citizenship clause to the 14th, to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and included both state and United States citizenship in order to overcome both of those situations.

PS Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal resident aliens, thus making themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
This is the historically accurate reason for the citizenship clause in the 14th.

After passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, former Confederate states said freed slaves may well be a United States citizen, but only a state could grant them state citizenship, and former Confederate states refused to grant [state] citizenship.

Further, Dred Scott was still the law of the land, thus freed slaves, all blacks in fact, could not be United States citizens either.

Thus, Congress added the citizenship clause to the 14th, to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and included both state and United States citizenship in order to overcome both of those situations.

PS Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal resident aliens, thus making themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Just to be clear, Are undocumented immigrants subject to having charges filed against them? Doesn't that make them subject to the jurisdiction of the US? People with diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but I'm pretty sure most undocumented immigrants are.
 
This is the historically accurate reason for the citizenship clause in the 14th.

After passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, former Confederate states said freed slaves may well be a United States citizen, but only a state could grant them state citizenship, and former Confederate states refused to grant [state] citizenship.

Further, Dred Scott was still the law of the land, thus freed slaves, all blacks in fact, could not be United States citizens either.

Thus, Congress added the citizenship clause to the 14th, to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and included both state and United States citizenship in order to overcome both of those situations.

PS Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal resident aliens, thus making themselves subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I'm glad you posted this.

The 14th amendment was allegedly ratified to provide former slaves and their offspring the full protection of the U.S. Constitution that is granted to citizens. Yet EVERYONE, judges, SCOTUS, local municipalities, as well as the very states that are expressly forbidden in the plain language of the amendment from passing any laws that infringe upon the equal rights of it's citizens, did so with impunity and ushered in 96 years of Jim Crow, in spite of the plain language of the 14th Amendment forbidding them from doing so.

To date, no one has anything to say about how THIS part of the 14th amendment has been ignored for close to 100 years in respect to those it was created to benefit - Black people - yet well more than 100 years since it's ratification, the 14th amendment has been cited as the grounds for granting birthright citizenship to those who are NOT only NOT citizens (compared to those MADE citizens by the 14th), but are in the country unlawfully.

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; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
This is what was then allowed:

Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which aimed to ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens, numerous state and local governments enacted laws that directly contravened its provisions, particularly targeting African Americans. These laws, commonly known as "Jim Crow" laws, institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. Below is a list of notable laws and practices that violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause:
1. Black Codes (Late 1860s):
  • Mississippi Black Code (1865): Mandated that African Americans sign yearly labor contracts; those without proof of employment could be arrested and fined.
  • South Carolina Black Code (1865): Restricted African Americans from holding certain occupations unless they paid a special tax.
2. Segregation Laws:
  • Louisiana Separate Car Act (1890): Required separate railway cars for white and Black passengers. This law led to the landmark Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine.
  • Florida Education Law (1885): Mandated separate schools for white and Black children.
3. Voting Restrictions:
  • Alabama Constitution (1901): Implemented literacy tests and poll taxes specifically designed to disenfranchise Black voters.
  • Mississippi Constitution (1890): Established complex voter registration requirements, including literacy tests and poll taxes, to suppress Black voter participation.
4. Anti-Miscegenation Laws:
  • Virginia Racial Integrity Act (1924): Prohibited marriage between white and non-white individuals.
  • Alabama Anti-Miscegenation Law (1927): Made interracial marriage illegal, with severe penalties for those who violated the law.
5. Public Accommodation Segregation:
  • Georgia Public Accommodations Law (1905): Required segregation in hotels, restaurants, and other public facilities.
  • Texas Railcar Segregation Law (1889): Mandated separate railroad cars for Black passengers.
6. Employment Discrimination:
  • South Carolina Labor Law (1915): Prohibited Black individuals from holding certain jobs in factories and mines.
  • Louisiana Sugar Plantation Law (1907): Allowed only white laborers to work in specific industries.
These laws systematically undermined the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, leading to widespread discrimination and inequality [specifically against Black people]. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that many of these discriminatory laws were challenged and overturned.
 
Just to be clear, Are undocumented immigrants subject to having charges filed against them? Doesn't that make them subject to the jurisdiction of the US? People with diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but I'm pretty sure most undocumented immigrants are.
That could very well be how they're determining that they are but I'm still pretty sure that wasn't their intent (from reading what they published during the period leading up to the drafting & ratification of the 14th)
 
That could very well be how they're determining that they are but I'm still pretty sure that wasn't their intent (from reading what they published during the period leading up to the drafting & ratification of the 14th)
Should we go by what others said about it, or what it actually says?
 
Those who wrote the 14th Amendment understood the English language.
If they meant former slaves, they could have said so.
But they used the term “all people ” which applies to everyone
 
If you are not a child of a foreign diplomat and you are born here, you are a citizen.

Thank you.
 
Should we go by what others said about it, or what it actually says?
By others do you mean all the legal rulings since its ratification because isn't it common knowledge that it was passed to attempt to undo the damage done by justice Taney in his Dred Scott v Sandford ruling?

On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney read the majority opinion of the Court, which stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. This decision moved the nation a step closer to the Civil War.
"They [the negro, the "subservient race"] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."​
The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States.
https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/no-rights-which-the-white-man-was-bound-to-respect/
The full decision can be read here which is pretty unconscionable:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
 
Just to be clear, Are undocumented immigrants subject to having charges filed against them? Doesn't that make them subject to the jurisdiction of the US? People with diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but I'm pretty sure most undocumented immigrants are.


I have now seen this argument multiple times, thus the talking points have gone out amongst the left. As in, throw this stupid argument out there. As if an illegal alien here could break the law and claim, hey, I'm not a citizen so you can't arrest me, let alone incarcerate me.

No one considered illegal alien women giving birth to grant their offspring citizenship and thus anchor the mother permanently in the nation.

It isn't just the baby being made permanent, it is also the lawbreaking mother (we don't send the mother back to wherever she came from and put the child into care). And then the mother, now anchored in America, gets to bring other family members in over the years.
 
I have now seen this argument multiple times, thus the talking points have gone out amongst the left. As in, throw this stupid argument out there. As if an illegal alien here could break the law and claim, hey, I'm not a citizen so you can't arrest me, let alone incarcerate me.

No one considered illegal alien women giving birth to grant their offspring citizenship and thus anchor the mother permanently in the nation.

It isn't just the baby being made permanent, it is also the lawbreaking mother (we don't send the mother back to wherever she came from and put the child into care). And then the mother, now anchored in America, gets to bring other family members in over the years.
And Reagan, Bush sr along with Congress' affiliation in the immigration reform laws of the 1980s encouraged it.
 
Amazing how Conservatives are literalists when it comes to the Constitution but only when it suits their needs


Suits whose needs? Nice how you see no needs for the nation as a whole. So typical of the left.

That baby, born here of an illegal alien woman anchors the mother here, we don't deport mommy. That mother then gets to bring in other relatives over the years, including any children she may have left behind to give birth here, and the baby's father, etc.

They all then get multiple benefits, such as food, medical care, schooling, housing help, all on the backs of the American people.
 
And Reagan, Bush sr along with Congress' affiliation in the immigration reform laws of the 1980s encouraged it.


I really don't give a damn what they encouraged back then.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom