the gist, as I understand, is that the argument that was presented is basically “the purpose of the 14th amendment was only to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves; children of parents who do not intend to permanently live in the US, or who still feel allegiance to a foreign country, are not intended to be included.” Barrett’s response was essentially “your argument is self-contradictory. many parents of newly freed slaves did not feel allegiance to the US and wished to return to the countries that they or their ancestors were taken from against their will. the amendment cannot have been intended to both include and exclude their children.”
Not just that, but their claim that the Amendment was ONLY to naturalize the black children on black slaves is contradicted by the fact that the Amendment doesn’t mention slaves or race AT ALL:
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.
Alito observed (ALITO!) that it comes down to deciding what the writers of the amendment intended, was it ONLY for the children of slaves, or was it intended for all future children of immigrants? Considering that slaves aren’t mentioned a single time in the Amendment, it seems he was pointing out an obvious flaw in what they thought was their strongest argument.
Sauer claims that the birthright citizenship should only apply to people born here who intend to stay, and have no foreign allegiances. He justified that by saying the history of birthright citizenship is specifically to help newly freed slaves after the US civil war, and should not apply to children of illegal immigrants.
Barret noted that most slaves were trafficked here against their will, and undoubtedly some of them wanted to go back to their home, or were still allegiant to their home country. So, Sauer’s test of whether someone is domiciled and has no foreign allegiances would preclude a sizeable amount of freed slaves. Therefore, his test is ahistorical, because in fact all slaces received citizenship regardless of their allegiance or willingness to stay.
The article claims the case will be won 7-2 in favor of birthright citizenship without any loyalty test.
Trump’s solicitor general was saying the 14th amendment wasn’t intended to cover the children of people here illegally, that it was intended for slaves.
Barrett argued that slaves were brought here illegally, so his basis is flawed.
It goes on about the governments position on domiciled people’s vs jus soli, based on soil, and jus sanguinis, based on descent and how basing citizenship on decent could get confusing very quickly therefore the writers of the 14th amendment clearly intended on jus soli.
What about slaves who were brought to this country illegally and against their will, as many were? Surely some of them still “felt allegiance to the countries where they were from” and intended “to return as soon as they can.” So wouldn’t their children be excluded from birthright citizenship, too? And if so, doesn’t that just blow up Sauer’s theory that the whole point of this clause was to protect the citizenship of these exact people?
So what’s the TLDR? This is paywalled for me.
the gist, as I understand, is that the argument that was presented is basically “the purpose of the 14th amendment was only to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves; children of parents who do not intend to permanently live in the US, or who still feel allegiance to a foreign country, are not intended to be included.” Barrett’s response was essentially “your argument is self-contradictory. many parents of newly freed slaves did not feel allegiance to the US and wished to return to the countries that they or their ancestors were taken from against their will. the amendment cannot have been intended to both include and exclude their children.”
Not just that, but their claim that the Amendment was ONLY to naturalize the black children on black slaves is contradicted by the fact that the Amendment doesn’t mention slaves or race AT ALL:
Alito observed (ALITO!) that it comes down to deciding what the writers of the amendment intended, was it ONLY for the children of slaves, or was it intended for all future children of immigrants? Considering that slaves aren’t mentioned a single time in the Amendment, it seems he was pointing out an obvious flaw in what they thought was their strongest argument.
Sauer claims that the birthright citizenship should only apply to people born here who intend to stay, and have no foreign allegiances. He justified that by saying the history of birthright citizenship is specifically to help newly freed slaves after the US civil war, and should not apply to children of illegal immigrants.
Barret noted that most slaves were trafficked here against their will, and undoubtedly some of them wanted to go back to their home, or were still allegiant to their home country. So, Sauer’s test of whether someone is domiciled and has no foreign allegiances would preclude a sizeable amount of freed slaves. Therefore, his test is ahistorical, because in fact all slaces received citizenship regardless of their allegiance or willingness to stay.
The article claims the case will be won 7-2 in favor of birthright citizenship without any loyalty test.
Who are the two dissenters?
/s
Trump’s solicitor general was saying the 14th amendment wasn’t intended to cover the children of people here illegally, that it was intended for slaves.
Barrett argued that slaves were brought here illegally, so his basis is flawed.
It goes on about the governments position on domiciled people’s vs jus soli, based on soil, and jus sanguinis, based on descent and how basing citizenship on decent could get confusing very quickly therefore the writers of the 14th amendment clearly intended on jus soli.
Just before the paywall for me: