Weekly Opinion Editorial
THE GOLDEN DOOR
by Steve Fair
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has
agreed to hear a case to decide if President Trump's order to end 'birthright
citizenship' is constitutional. Trump
vs. Barbara is a class action lawsuit brought by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and several other groups. Trump has argued the 14th amendment adopted
in 1868 was meant to apply to newly freed slaves and not to provide citizenship
to the children of illegal immigrants.
Those so called 'anchor babies' do not automatically grant legal status
to their parents. Having a child born in
the U.S. doesn't change the immigration status of the parents. They could still be subject to deportation if
they illegally entered the country. The
SCOTUS will likely hear arguments in early 2026.
President Trump signed an executive order immediately after taking office on January 20th to exclude children of illegal immigrants from automatic citizenship. The link to the order is: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the response to Trump vs. Barbara: “Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.” Three observations:
But there are periods in American history when
immigration has been restricted. The
'golden door' has been closed. Between
1900 and 1915, some 15 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Congress considered immigration a problem to
be closely managed. They passed the
Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and the National Origins Quota Act in 1924. Immigration was limited between 1935 until
1965 to roughly 150,000 each year.
Proponents of managing immigration recognized an unrestricted policy promoted
the possibility of America being invaded by foreigners.
The 15 million Immigrants that came to America in the 1900s assimilated into American culture. They learned to speak English and accepted American values and customs . Today's immigrants practice cultural pluralism. Different cultures live side-by-side and interact, but preserve their distinctiveness.
Consider the following statement: "Immigration is bringing to the country people whom it is very difficult to assimilate and who do not promise well for the standard of civilization in the United States.” The speaker was not Donald Trump on the campaign trail in 2024. It was Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, (R- MA) in 1891. Immigration has long been a divisive issue and it is past time for Congress to deal with it.

1 comment:
It’s impressive how you managed to use so many words to argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean exactly what it says it means.
It’s cute that you think "original intent" is a magic wand you can wave to make clear text disappear. The 14th Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Notice it doesn’t say "except for people whose parents we don't like." If the authors wanted to exclude specific groups, they knew how to write exceptions—they were literally in the middle of a post-Civil War legal overhaul. Trying to "narrow" the definition now isn't originalism; it's just creative editing because the actual Constitution is inconvenient for your narrative.
Ah, the classic "my ancestors were better than your ancestors" trope. You claim the 1900s immigrants "assimilated" while today’s practice "cultural pluralism."
Newsflash: In 1900, people said the exact same thing about the Italians, the Irish, and the Jews. They lived in ethnic enclaves, spoke their native languages, and were called "unassimilable" by the Henry Cabot Lodges of the world.
Quoting a 19th-century restrictionist isn't the "gotcha" you think it is; it just proves that xenophobia has always had a fan club. You’re not being profound; you’re just recycling a 130-year-old script that was wrong then and is wrong now.
You seem very excited about an Executive Order trying to override an Amendment. Since when does a President get to "reinterpret" the Bill of Rights or the Reconstruction Amendments with a Sharpie? If we're going to let Presidents decide which parts of the Constitution apply based on "current conditions," I’m sure you’d be thrilled if a different President decided the 2nd Amendment only applied to 18th-century muskets. No? Didn't think so.
You complain that immigration policy is "confusing and chaotic," yet you’re cheering on a legal challenge that seeks to upend over a century of settled law (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, anyone?). If you want less chaos, maybe don't try to strip citizenship away from people based on a legal theory that’s been dead for 125 years.
Post a Comment