The Abolition of Birthright Citizenship

An Attack on African Americans?

One of Donald Trump’s emesis of Executive Orders is the abolition of birthright citizenship. This order is ostensibly intended to stop the creation of “anchor babies” by undocumented immigrants. The principle is codified in the 14th Amendement to the US Constitiution. Already 22 states have filed suit against Trump to stop this order from implementation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Like many Americans, I was a ltttle fuzzy on the roots of birthright citizenship. Here for your interest is the history of the concept and, if Trump’s order stands, it could effect black Americans.

The concept of birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli ("right of the soil"), originates from ancient principles of nationality and has evolved over centuries through legal and political development. Here's an overview of its origins and history:

Ancient Roots

• The concept of citizenship based on place of birth can be traced back to ancient civilizations, such as Rome, where citizenship was often tied to the land where a person was born, although social status, parentage, and other factors played significant roles.

• In the feudal systems of medieval Europe, land and allegiance to a sovereign were closely tied, but nationality was more often inherited from parents (jus sanguinis, "right of blood").

Common Law Development

• The modern understanding of birthright citizenship originates from English common law, which held that individuals born within the dominions of the king were subjects of the crown, regardless of the parents' nationality or status (with some exceptions, such as children of diplomats or enemy occupiers).

  • This principle was solidified by Calvin’s Case (1608), a landmark decision that established the concept of allegiance by birth in English law.

Adoption in the United States

• In the U.S., birthright citizenship was codified by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1868), which states:

"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."

• • This amendment was primarily intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.

  • The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been debated but generally excludes children of foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces.

Global Spread

• The U.S. model of jus soli influenced other countries, particularly in the Americas, where many nations adopted similar birthright citizenship policies to encourage settlement and integration.

• Today, jus soli is most common in the Americas, while many other countries favor jus sanguinis or a combination of the two.

Birthright citizenship remains a topic of legal and political debate worldwide, particularly concerning immigration and national identity. Would you like to dive deeper into any specific aspect?

Abolishing birthright citizenship in the United States would raise significant legal and historical concerns, especially for African Americans who are descendants of enslaved people. Here's how it might impact this group:

1. Historical Context of Birthright Citizenship and African Americans

• The 14th Amendment (1868) was primarily designed to address the status of formerly enslaved people after the Civil War. Before its ratification, enslaved people and their descendants were denied citizenship due to the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which ruled that African Americans could not be citizens.

• The amendment’s guarantee of citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. was a direct remedy to this injustice and ensured that African Americans, regardless of ancestry, were full citizens.

2. Potential Impact of Abolishing Birthright Citizenship

Loss of Citizenship by Birth

• Without birthright citizenship, African Americans, like others, would likely need to prove their citizenship based on ancestry (jus sanguinis) or another legal framework.

• This could create significant bureaucratic barriers, especially for those who may not have comprehensive genealogical records due to the erasure of family histories during slavery.

Legal Limbo and Statelessness

• Descendants of enslaved people might face challenges proving their lineage under a new system, particularly if the rules required extensive documentation of parentage or ancestral ties.

• This could place individuals at risk of statelessness, where they might no longer have a clear legal status in the U.S., despite being culturally, historically, and socially American.

Erosion of Equal Protection

• The 14th Amendment doesn’t just guarantee citizenship—it also ensures equal protection under the law. Altering this foundational principle could undermine legal protections tied to citizenship and disproportionately affect marginalized communities, including African Americans.

3. Practical Challenges for African Americans

• Documentation Gaps: Enslaved individuals were denied basic records such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, and property deeds. Descendants may still struggle to reconstruct family histories to meet new requirements.

• Discriminatory Application: A system that abolishes birthright citizenship might disproportionately affect African Americans if implemented with racial or socioeconomic bias, given systemic inequities in access to legal and administrative resources.

4. Broader Social and Political Implications

• The symbolic and practical reversal of protections granted by the 14th Amendment would signal a rejection of the historical acknowledgment of slavery’s injustices.

• It could reignite racial tensions and further marginalize African Americans, undoing decades of civil rights progress.

Conclusion

For African Americans, the abolition of birthright citizenship could be deeply disruptive, not just administratively but also symbolically, undermining the hard-fought recognition of their rightful place as full citizens of the United States. The move would likely create confusion, inequity, and legal challenges that disproportionately impact this group due to the unique historical circumstances of slavery and systemic racism.

Obviously, Trump and his advisors didn’t think this through very well. This Executive order is, quite simply, stupid.