Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ilikepurple

(733 posts)
27. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act shows the limits of the everyone born interpretation.
Tue Mar 31, 2026, 08:08 PM
Mar 31

The “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” qualifier was placed to exclude tribal Indians who were seen as primarily subject to the jurisdiction of their respective tribes. I agree that it was most likely worded to exclude only tribal Indians, but they did choose this wording instead of the “excluding Indians not taxed” language of section 2 of the amendment, which means it might have been intended to be broader, narrower, or more ambiguous. Legislative records are persuasive but not controlling in Constitutional law, partially because it’s pretty hard to pin down the precise intent from the debates. If the administration can win the argument that some babies born here are primarily under the jurisdiction of the non-citizen mother’s sovereign nation as is their mother, they might unfortunately get a foot in the door. I think it’s very much a long shot, but I also think that we cannot wholly rely on precedential interpretations for what we think is a an easy plain language or legislative record understanding of an act of Congress. I believe the legal arguments put forth by TheNYT and others are undeniably strong, but what I believe is not determinative. That decision will be made by at least 5 of the members of the USSC.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Baby shark up that Orange Hog's pizzle. SoFlaBro Mar 30 #1
... BumRushDaShow Mar 30 #3
I'd pay good money to watch that. erronis Mar 30 #5
"We're going to need a smaller shark!" SeattleVet Mar 30 #10
Hey............ traitor my family history goes all the way back to the early 1700's in this country........... turbinetree Mar 30 #2
Quiet Piggy. Talitha Mar 30 #4
All his kids, except Tiffany, are birthright citizens. Kid Berwyn Apr 2 #29
THIS ... KPN Mar 30 #6
Deport Trump. SergeStorms Mar 30 #9
Trump, Republicans, and Stephen Miller popsdenver Mar 30 #7
Trump is selling citizenships. Mblaze Mar 30 #8
Wanna be Russian anchor babies live in Trump properties until their "birth-day" maspaha Mar 30 #11
That's a lie cannabis_flower Mar 30 #12
It isn't that way in Mexico LeftInTX Mar 30 #13
Shame on you Donald for talking about Barron that way!! AZ8theist Mar 31 #14
Ohhh... I see. He POSTED a rant. QueerDuck Mar 31 #15
Um lonely bird Mar 31 #16
So we think the Congress of 1866 was illiterate, Bluetus Mar 31 #17
"We are to believe they couldn't understand what the words, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" BumRushDaShow Mar 31 #20
Trump isn't denying citizenship to "slave children" Bluetus Mar 31 #21
And that is HIS interpretation BumRushDaShow Mar 31 #22
The Senate arrived at the final language of the Citizenship Clause only after a robust debate about the implications..." pat_k Mar 31 #24
My first American ancestor arrived in Virginia in 1640. Aristus Mar 31 #18
Trump knows about enslavement. He does know about that. yardwork Mar 31 #19
NYTimes: Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Was Only for the Children of Slaves. He's Wrong. pat_k Mar 31 #23
The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act shows the limits of the everyone born interpretation. Ilikepurple Mar 31 #27
The man behind Donald Trump's push to end birthright citizenship (suspended attorney John Eastman) LetMyPeopleVote Mar 31 #25
Okay, lemme get this straight... GiqueCee Mar 31 #26
Former Trump lawyer John Eastman arriving at the Supreme Court for the birthright citizenship debate. LetMyPeopleVote Apr 2 #28
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'BABIES OF SLAVES!' Trump...»Reply #27