Hey, there! Log in / Register

Massachusetts AG picks her first fight: Birthright citizenship

By adamg on Mon, 01/20/2025 - 11:05pm

Among the flurry of executive orders issued by the new president today is one that declares people born on American soil are no longer automatically US citizens, because he says so.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell vowed tonight to fight that re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment - although she said it won't be the only one she'll work against:

Birthright citizenship is a right spelled out in the Constitution. The President can’t take that away by executive order. We intend to make that clear.We will be reviewing this flood of executive orders and stand ready to defend the law and protect the people of Massachusetts.

Topics: 
Politics
Free tagging: 
14th Amendment
Andrea Campbell


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By deselby on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 5:33am.

There must be some grad student couple on an F-1 visa or similar who just gave birth, or will be around Boston.

a declaratory case might get standing and thus the issues wrong and fuck things up

By necturus on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 6:37am.

...it's just noise. You can't challenge noise in court.

By ST on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 8:15am.

When a parent fills out a birth certificate for a newborn at a hospital, there’s the option to apply for a Social Security number. From what I recall, it just involves checking one box - no extra documentation required. So that’s likely the first opportunity the federal government would have to apply the new rule, since there are far more restrictions on non-citizens getting Social Security numbers.

By SwirlyGrrl on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 3:29pm.

The massively unconstitutional convict's order claims that states cannot issue birth certificates.

Clearly the states have standing.

By Robert Winters on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 6:52am.

John McCain was born in Panama while his father (an admiral in the U.S. Navy) was stationed in Panama in 1936.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/john-mccains-presidential-eligibility/

It was determined that he was a natural born citizen because his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth - even though he was born in Panama.

So... let's flip the situation. Suppose a couple are citizens of Mexico and are visiting the United States when their child is born. Analogous to the McCain situation, wouldn't that child then be considered a natural born citizen of Mexico?

By hats on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 7:21am.

That would depend on Mexico's laws, which are not in question here. And even if they were, the 14th Amendment does not forbid, preclude, or even address dual citizenship.

The issue at hand is that we literally have a constitutional amendment that says that regardless of the citizenship of your parents, if you are born on US soil, you automatically receive US citizenship. And That Man is trying to do away by that by saying that's what he wants. That is not how the US government is supposed to work. So, are we going to let it work like that, or no? Personally, I come down on the side of "no".

For what it's worth, I suspect if you look back in your own family history, you'll find ancestors who got their US citizenship via the 14th amendment.

I'll also note that a major group to contest the 14th Amendment was the defeated Confederate states.

By Charles E Olson on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 7:25am.

The child would be a US citizen per the 14th Amendment. Whether they are also a Mexican citizen depends on Mexican citizenship law, which I am not familiar with. There's such a thing as dual citizenship.

By MC Slim JB on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 8:10am.

language on the subject, you might have an argument. But it is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

IANAL, but that seem pretty unambiguous to me. I assume that the Kakistocrat-in-Chief thinks a corrupt SCOTUS will find a way to read that ass-backwards.

By anon on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 8:38am.

Oh, I think you do, you can use the old "it was the intent of the people wrote the amendment". Illegal immigration wasn't an issue when the amendment was written, it was never meant to apply to persons in the country illegally.

By SwirlyGrrl on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 1:08pm.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

Note that the original intent didn't cover undocumented aliens because there was no such thing as unlawful entry. You could just show up and be white and stay long enough to claim citizenship. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/federal/naturalization-process-in-...

The first naturalization act, passed by Congress on March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), provided that any free, white, adult alien, male or female, who had resided within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States for a period of 2 years was eligible for citizenship. Under the act, any individual who desired to become a citizen was to apply to “any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least.”

By Ari O on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 3:49pm.

We should go back to that.

By Lecil on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 8:23am.

The US constitution is clear here; that child is an American citizen. They might also be a Mexican citizen. Trump can't change either no matter how many pieces of paper he signs.

By BostonDog on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 9:16am.

Laws, the constitution, and court orders don't mean much if they are ignored

The supreme Court has made it clear they support the president to do almost anything and he will fire government employees who don't do what he demands.

He just released people who violently tried to overthrow Congress. You think he's going to let legal doctrine slow him down?

By Ari O on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 3:58pm.

Hint, it's not the federal government.

There's nothing on the birth certificate about parents' citizenship (it does have their place of birth, but that says nothing about their citizenship since they could be naturalized or born abroad to American parents). So how do you even enforce any of this? Have the federal government to require cities and states which issue vital records to establish citizenship?

This is all so exceedingly stupid but I guess eggs are cheap so, good job people. (Oh, wait.)

By lbb on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 8:55am.

That case found that McCain had US citizenship. It didn't rule on whether he was or was not entitled to citizenship in any other country; that would be absurd. Thus, your hypothetical child born in the US of Mexican citizens might or might not be entitled to Mexican citizenship according to Mexican law. They are entitled to US citizenship according to the US Constitution.

By peter on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 8:59am.

Are you thinking that a person can only have one citizenship? That's not true. When a baby is born, you need to check the citizenship rules for all the countries involved. In your example, the baby born to Mexican citizens on US soil would meet the requirements for Mexican citizenship (baby needs to have at least one Mexican citizen parent) AND US citizenship (born on US soil).

By necturus on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 9:17am.

...who are born, for instance, to European tourists who happen to be in the U.S. at the time. They later find that they have to file U.S. tax returns even though they've never lived in the U.S. They may have trouble opening bank accounts in their home countries, as foreign banks are subject to U.S.regulations if they do business with U.S. citizens, so many banks refuse to do so.

By Tim Mc. on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 9:17am.

You can end up with someone who is born being a citizen of multiple countries!

(I wonder if someone could theoretically be born with *zero* citizenships. Probably...)

By peter on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 12:29pm.

https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/the-urgent-need-to-end-childhood-stateless...

By deselby on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 9:51am.

which was US territory at the time, not in the Republic of Panama.
So that was another factor in his eligibility as a "natural born citizen."

By SwirlyGrrl on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 1:12pm.

Since the beginning of our republic, the US has recognized any child born anywhere in the world to a US citizen parent to be a citizen. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C5-1/ALDE_00013692/

The whole thing was introductory bullshit for what we see here.

By deselby on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 10:00am.

A child born in Mexico is a Mexican citizen no matter the nationality of the parents.

A child born outside of Mexico to a Mexican parent is also a Mexican citizen.

By SwirlyGrrl on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 1:18pm.

Unless Mexico changed its laws, you have to affirm your citizenship when you reach the age of majority or let it go. Affirming your citizenship means you rescind any other citizenship you may have claim to.

I had numerous friends and colleagues who had to make this choice, as they had one US-citizen parent and one Mexican citizen parent. It isn't an uncommon thing on the west coast.

Canada, meanwhile, recognizes "dualies". When they unified and clarified their requirements, my father "woke up Canadian" and a colleague of mine who was born in Montreal was able to claim hers. My brother naturalized but he has dual status and carries two passports when travelling to the US.

ETA: Mexico recognized dual citizenship in 1998

By anon on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 7:39am.

AG Campbell has picked the right issue to fight about. Eventually this case will go to the Supreme Court and the conservatives appointed by Trump will overturn his executive order.

By necturus on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 9:25am.

And if they did, would he respect their decision?

By lbb on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 4:20pm.

Does his "respect", or lack thereof, matter? Parents don't have to go to Donald J. Trump to get a birth certificate.

By Frelmont on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 10:45am.

.

By Frelmont on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 12:40pm.

What is the original meaning of Section 1. ?

So, the A.G. picks her 1st battle, but did the Governor just clarify we’re not a sanctuary state on Wednesday?

https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-homeless-migrants-shelter-gover...

By SwirlyGrrl on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 2:40pm.

You really are both disingenuous and dim.

Seriously consider your comments before posting them.

By Frelmont on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 4:20pm.

It’s a fair question. All debate is fair debate. We could all learn more about our history and beliefs and strength of beliefs of our population.

Why shouldn’t the scope of this question be defined, delineated and debated in the public sphere?

Yes, it is true that having a free and open discussion and review may provide legitimacy to proponents of amending birthright citizenship…on the other hand debate may affirm longstanding traditions and jurisprudence on the status quo.

I’m not sure Trump’s stated aim is his true aim, only a means to an end.

I don’t have papers handy showing I came over on the Mayflower, or an Ellis Island receipt on me…should I worry too?

By lbb on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 4:21pm.

All debate is fair debate.

It isn't. Intellectually dishonest, vapid, fact-free yammering is not "debate" in any case.

By SwirlyGrrl on Tue, 01/21/2025 - 4:57pm.

This has been settled law ever since.

The constitution overrides all of it. It was affirmed 135 years ago by the Supreme Court.