The Exile's Bazaar
  • Home
  • About
  • Destinations
  • Book
  • Publications
  • Contact

Notes from a fascinating world.

The world is like a bazaar, full of interesting odds and ends, and I've been exiled into it. This is my all-over-the-map (literally and metaphorically) attempt at capturing some of the world's many wonders.

Americans Have Always Had Birthright Citizenship - If They Were White

11/5/2018

 
PictureDred Scott.
A few years ago I published a law review article.

​Hardly anyone read it, not least because it was on a subject that at the time seemed barely worth discussing: birthright citizenship in the United States Constitution. And yet that subject is now suddenly a hot button issue in the news.

Specifically, I was tracing a connection between the birthright citizenship guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment and the “Natural Born Citizen” clause in Article II. ​

​My argument, in a Charles Black-inspired structuralist style, boiled down to this: Although the Fourteenth Amendment did not become a part of the Constitution until 1868, the better part of a century after the original document was drafted, Article II presupposes the existence of birthright citizenship. This is because the term “natural born citizen,” though undefined, has always been understood to mean someone who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. Because Article II says that only natural born citizens are eligible for the presidency, at least some citizens must meet that qualification (otherwise the constitutional order would self-destruct when it turns out that no one qualifies for the presidency). That means some must have had citizenship from the moment of birth, as a matter of birthright.

In fact, the idea that at least some Americans have always had birthright citizenship was not controversial at all as of 1868. Researching the article taught me just how far back the tradition goes.

Continental Europe historically followed jus sanguinis, the right of blood, under which children take the citizenship of their parents. But England, the eventual progenitor of all common law jurisdictions including the United States, followed jus soli, the right of the soil: if a child was born in England, regardless of his or her parents’ citizenship, the child would be an English subject. Already well-recognized by English courts by then, jus soli received statutory affirmation in 1368 during the reign of Edward III (42 Edw. 3, c. 10).

Indeed, English law treated jus soli as the dominant principle so that the controversy was over whether children born to English subjects abroad would also be English, i.e., whether some kind of jus sanguinis would also be allowed.

Upon independence, although the newly formed United States consciously abandoned the British system of government, it never abandoned the principles of British common law. After all, that was what the Founding Fathers had grown up learning. They could no more renounce it than they could renounce their own upbringing. Although, much later, influential scholars such as Charles Beard taught us to think of American Founders as birds of a feather with French Philosophes such as Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws was less important to Jefferson and Adams and Madison than Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As the original Constitution never define citizenship nor suggested any departure from a British understanding of that idea, it was universally understood that jus soli would prevail in America. Anyone born in America would be not only a U.S. citizen but a natural born citizen, a citizen as a matter of birthright.

Unless, of course, you were “colored.”

It is often said that slavery is America’s original sin. Its obvious immorality and illogic wrought havoc on the Shining City on the Hill from the very beginning. The Electoral College, which allows the possibility (and the reality in both 2000 and 2016) of a candidate losing the popular vote but winning the presidency, was invented to placate Southern slaveholding states: they could neither allow their slaves to vote nor stomach the electoral consequences of having a majority of their residents not voting. So similarly although everyone understood that birth in the United States conferred citizenship, slaveholders in the South refused to admit that they were keeping their fellow citizens in bondage.

That contradiction came to a head in 1857, when the Supreme Court decided Scott v. Sandford. The question was whether Dred Scott, a black man born into slavery in Virginia, could become free and be deemed a citizen by virtue of having moved to a free state. Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Virginian slaveholder appointed by “Indian Killer” Andrew Jackson, ruled that no matter what, no black person could ever be an American citizen, because black people were only “property,” like farm animals.

The Scott decision was the catalyst that brought Abraham Lincoln to national prominence and eventually to the presidency. And it was a major factor leading to the Civil War. And after the war came the Fourteenth Amendment, which really only repeated what was already the law — jus soli — even before the war and even before the founding. By making the principle explicit, the Amendment was saying that no longer could the hypocrisy continue that some Americans, namely white ones, would enjoy birthright citizenship, while their peers with darker skin tones would be denied that right.
PictureWong Kim Ark in 1904.
The Amendment faced its great test in the subsequent landmark case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898). A much more enlightened Supreme Court now held that, yes, the Fourteenth Amendment meant what it said. One born in California, even if he was — gasp! — Chinese, must be deemed a citizen as a matter of birthright, despite the Chinese Exclusion Act, which outlawed Chinese immigration.

(Incidentally, U.S. citizenship law for a long time was also deeply sexist. The Expatriation Act of 1907 stripped American women of their citizenships if they married foreign men. The Cable Act of 1922 amended that rule so that now American women lost their citizenships only if they married Asian men but not white foreigners. Yes, you read that right.)

It’s worth remembering all of this today. There has always been birthright citizenship in America. But, for much of the country’s history, Americans refused to apply it to half of their own people purely out of racism. The suggestion now to abrogate birthright citizenship is no different. Unless birthright citizenship is guaranteed to everyone of every background born in the country, it will always only be the likes of Dred Scott and Wong Kim Ark who get their citizenships challenged.


Comments are closed.

    Author

    Writer, traveler, lawyer, dilettante. Failed student of physics. Not altogether distinguished graduate of two Ivy League institutions. Immigrant twice over. "The grand tour is just the inspired man's way of getting home."
    Follow me on Twitter (@W_T_Han) and Instagram (@wthtravel).
    ​https://www.scmp.com/author/william-han

    同是天涯淪落人,
    ​相逢何必曾相識?

    Updates Mondays.

     
    Want to be notified of new posts?
    Get newsletter
    Powered By Constant Contact
     

    Archives

    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016

    Categories

    All
    Afghanistan
    Africa
    Amazon
    America
    Antarctica
    Anthropology
    Archaeology
    Architecture
    Argentina
    Armenia
    Art
    Astronomy
    Books
    Brazil
    Buddhism
    Caribbean
    Caribbeans
    Caucasus
    Central America
    Central Asia
    Chile
    China
    Christianity
    Cinema
    Colombia
    Costa Rica
    Criticism
    Cuba
    Culture
    Easter Island
    Economics
    Ecuador
    England
    Essay
    Ethiopia
    Etymology
    Europe
    Family
    Film
    France
    Goths
    Halloween
    Hinduism
    History
    Huns
    Iceland
    Immigration
    Inca
    Indonesia
    Iran
    Iraq
    Islam
    Japan
    Kenya
    Korea
    Law
    Linguistics
    Literature
    Maldives
    Martial-arts
    Mathematics
    Medicine
    Mexico
    Middle East
    Mongolia
    Mythology
    Nepal
    New Zealand
    Pacific-islands
    Panama
    Persia
    Peru
    Philosophy
    Politics
    Portraits & Encounters
    Portugal
    Psychology
    Race
    Refugees
    Religion
    Rome
    Russia
    Science
    Sherlock Holmes
    Singapore
    South America
    Spain
    Sri Lanka
    Superman
    Syria
    Taiwan
    Television
    Travel
    Travel Advice
    Ukraine
    United States
    USA
    Uzbekistan
    Vaccination
    Voltaire
    Women
    Writing
    Zoroastrianism

    RSS Feed

  • Home
  • About
  • Destinations
  • Book
  • Publications
  • Contact