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.
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.