Sunday, December 7, 2025

SCOTUS TO HEAR IMMIGRATION CASE!

 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:

 First, what was the original intent of the 14th amendment?  The primary intent was to grant citizenship and equal legal rights to formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.  Congress wanted to ensure individual states would not deny fundamental rights like due process and equal protection to anyone.  The 14th amendment aimed to create a uniform standard of citizenship and civil rights, making Black Americans full citizens and protecting their liberties against state infringement. 

 In 1866, when Congress approved the amendment, the issue of 'illegal immigrants' was not an issue.  Immigration was essentially unhindered.  All immigrants were considered legal and entitled to citizenship after a minimum residence period.  That has obviously changed and the original intent of the 14th amendment has been twisted.

 Second, America is a land of immigrants.  Inscribed on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal are the words of poet Emma Lazarus: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

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. 

 Third, America's immigration policy has been inconsistent.  It has been marked by cycles of restrictive and lenient approaches.  President Biden opened the borders.  President Trump closed them and built a wall.  Millions of immigrants who have entered the U.S. legally face massive legal waits and backlogs that often result in the loss of legal status.  Congress' inconsistency in failing to pass comprehensive reforms have led to competing executive orders.  America's immigration policy remains confusing and chaotic. 

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:

James said...

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.