Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision in re-affirming that the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. The case of Trump v. Barbara struck down an executive order that would have denied birthright citizenship, but arguments about what it means to be a citizen remain persistent.
Rick Su, a professor at the UNC School of Law specializing in immigration law, described how he felt hearing the Supreme Court decision on June 30.
“Relief, I think,” Su told 97.9 The Hill.
“Though it’s sort of interesting at this time to think about relief upholding a 100-year old decision,” he continued. “But the fact that the Supreme Court didn’t rock the boat was relief enough, especially at this moment and the challenges that everyone’s facing in regard to basic constitutional principles.”
The decision passed 6-3 and reaffirmed the principle that nearly anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Legally known as Jus Soli and established in 1898 during the landmark Wong Kim Ark case, Su explained how it is our most basic understanding of birthright citizenship.
“But really for the last 40 years, that particular phrase has been attacked,” Su said. “And there’s been an effort to essentially say, ‘Jurisdiction doesn’t mean jurisdiction. It means something else. It means consent, allegiance, or domicile.’ And of course, all of this is wrapped up in immigration politics. It’s instrumental in a way that we’re trying to get at a certain group of people, as opposed to just trying to interpret what the constitutional text says.”
Rick Su (right) speaking with 97.9 The Hill’s Aaron Keck on July 7. (Photo by Aaron Keck/Chapel Hill Media Group.)
The Fourteenth Amendment helped protect birthright citizenship even amid one of the most notorious laws in U.S. history — the Chinese Exclusion Act. Su said the 1882 law made it increasingly more difficult for Chinese immigrants to become naturalized citizens.
“One of the first bills we passed was just [to] exclude an entire race,” the immigration law professor explained. “But then to continuously up the stakes, they made more certification requirements [to naturalize]. They changed the fact that even people here could not leave. If they left [the country], they couldn’t come back.”
Even though the act barred Wong Kim Ark’s parents from re-entering the country or obtaining citizenship, the court ruled he was a U.S. citizen because of his birthplace in San Francisco.
“I think that history is important because there’s an effort right now actually to rewrite that history,” Su said.
Despite the outcome of Trump v. Barbara, Su said the argument to overturn the 1898 precedent is having a resurgence, citing parental allegiance and calling into question what it means to be a natural-born American compared to a citizen on paper.
The UNC professor best described U.S. citizenship as a line.
“Once you cross it, we are all citizens,” Sue said. “Except for running for president, we can all do the same things. I think it became more and more clear that that might not be the case, and there may be liabilities that I endure or other naturalized citizens may endure that natural-born wouldn’t. Not because of law, but partly because of politics and maybe changing law.”
Su called the Trump Administration particularly “eager” to strip immigrants of their citizenship status. In an unprecedented government effort, October will likely see citizenship revoked for more than 250 foreign-born Americans accused of obtaining citizenship illegally. Proposed in May by Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a new bill could also make a natural-born citizenship requirement to serve in Congress. In the joint-resolution, Mace wrote how those writing the country’s laws “should have one loyalty: America.”
Generally, Su said today’s world is seeing a fundamental shift on what it means to be a citizen. And if a country cannot define citizenship, he shared how he believes it paves the way for exclusion and citizenship “tiers.”
“I think right now we’re re-examining the Fourteenth Amendment because of this panic about illegal immigration,” Sue said. “The [Supreme Court said], ‘How far does that go?’ To imagine that, given the reason we passed the Fourteenth Amendment, is there the possibility that there would be — by opening up loopholes — more abuse in the future?”
To hear the full conversation, click here.
Featured image via AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite.
Chapelboro.com does not charge subscription fees, and you can directly support our efforts in local journalism here. Want more of what you see on Chapelboro? Let us bring free local news and community information to you by signing up for our newsletter.
‘A Fundamental Shift on What It Means to Be a Citizen’: The Ongoing Immigration Debate Chapelboro.com.
Hence then, the article about a fundamental shift on what it means to be a citizen the ongoing immigration debate was published today ( ) and is available on chapelboro ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( ‘A Fundamental Shift on What It Means to Be a Citizen’: The Ongoing Immigration Debate )
Also on site :
- 'It was unlike anything I'd witnessed before': Orcas seen headbutting a sunfish so hard that it exploded
- 1989 Concert Mishap That Became One of Music's Most Infamous Scandals Happened 37 Years Ago This Week
- ‘Stuart Fails to Save the Universe’ Creator Says ‘Big Bang’ Character Was “Worst Choice” To Lead Spin-Off, “Which Made Him The Perfect Choice”