logo
Login Subscribe
Google Play App Store
  • News
    • Obituaries
    • Lifestyle
    • Opinions
  • Sports
  • E-edition
  • Calendar
  • Archives
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Advertisers
    • Form Submission
    • About Us
    • News
      • Obituaries
      • Lifestyle
      • Opinions
    • Sports
    • E-edition
    • Calendar
    • Archives
    • Contact
      • Contact Us
      • Advertisers
      • Form Submission
      • About Us
Birthright citizenship among barrage of challenging executive orders
commentary
February 5, 2025
Birthright citizenship among barrage of challenging executive orders

I have spent more class time discussing the barrage of executive orders and pardons from both the outgoing and incoming presidents this week. As a federal judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order to change birthright citizenship, that topic seems to be the best place to begin. I should mention that I struggle with the legality of most executive orders, but that argument will have to wait.

The discussion of birthright citizenship centers on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The clause under debate states, “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.” While it seems simple enough, it is complicated.

The clause “and subject to jurisdiction thereof ” seems to trip up everyone. What does that mean? Well, it’s open to interpretation. The problem and the brilliance of the Constitution is its vagueness. It must be. If the Constitution was packed full of specifics, it would have been scrapped years ago. True, a few things are specified: the president must be 35 years old to be elected, but it also says the president must be compensated, without giving a figure. It is up to Congress to determined that along the way.

When it comes to citizenship, the original Constitution is silent. Citizenship requirements, determined by the courts and Congress, have been changed many times throughout our nation’s history.

The first citizenship law was passed in 1790 and said, “Be it enacted… That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application 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, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or af-firmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States.”

Some later examples are the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1789 during John Adams’ administration, which changed the length of time one must live in America to 14 years before applying for citizenship. In the 1857 Dred Scott case, courts basically said slaves were not citizens.

A few years later in 1868, we get the 14th Amendment, which changed the earlier legal precedent on citizenship. In other words, citizenship laws have been fluid. Even with the acceptance of the 14th Amendment, later cases were required to understand exactly what the amendment meant.

In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the courts said a child born to lawful immigrant parents was a citizen. Note “lawful.” Whether we agree with what the president says about birthright citizenship, historically speaking, those laws are still subject to change.

Back to the difficult clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Historically, this was always seen as addressing two main groups. The first were diplomats. If children of foreign diplomats were born in America, they were not granted citizenship because they were subjects of a different jurisdiction (country). The second group were Native Americans for the same reasons.

In 1868, Indians were subjects of sovereign tribes, not the United States, and so their children were not given citizenship by being born in America. (Note that children of today’s diplomats are still not granted citizenship, but Native American children are.)

Citizenship laws have changed even since the 14th Amendment.

If the U.S. Supreme Court takes on this case — and I believe they will — much of their decision will be based on legal precedent, but they must also understand the intent of the law they are interpreting.

Intent is often difficult to ascertain, but it is worth noting the intent of the 14th Amendment.

The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are considered the Civil War or Reconstruction amendments because they all came at the end of or right after the Civil War. The intent of these amendments seems clear. The Republicancontrolled Congress was trying to protect the newly freed slave population and fix the lack of official citizenship requirements in the Constitution. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, the 14th defined citizenship, and the 15th protected the freedmen’s right to vote. Congress wanted to make sure freed men could not lose their rights because they were once slaves or because of their color. The mere fact that they were born in America meant they were citizens with all the rights that go with citizenship.

It is impossible to know is if those members of Congress ever intended the amendment to apply to a baby of an illegal alien. An argument can be made that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but instead of subjects and citizens of the nations from which they come and so their offspring are not covered under the 14th Amendment.

It is also impossible to know if the amendments’ authors intended its use to skirt immigration laws as there were none. They never could have foreseen thousands of people swarming across our nation’s southern border when they created this new rule.

An important takeaway is that because our citizenship requirements and immigration laws have changed many times throughout our nation’s history, these debates are not new. It also seems believable that Congress did not write the 14th Amendment with illegal immigration in mind. I am not calling for birthright citizenship to end, but it is worth examining.

History has shown our nation has a precedent for change. However, I believe the decision on birthright citizenship needs to happen in the Court, and Congress — not the President — needs to seriously reform our nation’s immigration laws.

James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@ gmail. com.

Braving the festival, honoring a friend
A: Main, news
Braving the festival, honoring a friend
By LENORE BECHTEL 
September 3, 2025
Every Labor Day weekend since moving to Oklahoma, I thought about going to the Dusk to Dawn Blues Festival. But the idea of a yard party running from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. was intimidating—and I could neve...
A: Main, news
Man injured diving into shallow water
September 3, 2025
A 22-year-old Yukon man was injured when he dove from a pontoon boat into shallow water at Lake Eufaula, according to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Patrick Tanner reportedly stopped his vessel to swim ...
A: Main, news
Man found dead in yard; possible suspect investigated
September 3, 2025
WARNER – Warner Police responded to a call early Saturday morning about a dead man laying outside of a residence in the area of Fifth and Third streets. The deceased has been identified as 51-year-old...
A: Main, news
Wellness Day for seniors Sept. 16
September 3, 2025
Heritage Home Care’s fifth annual Senior Wellness Day will be held Tuesday, Sept. 16, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at 126 N. 1st St. (now Bridges Street), which is the former location of Family Dollar. The e...
A: Main, news
Looking ahead: Firm to help guide the way
By JERRY FINK MANAGING EDITOR 
September 3, 2025
What will Eufaula look like in 50 years? Without a plan, it’s anybody’s guess. But the City Council has taken steps to remove at least some of the guesswork. At a special meeting Friday, Aug. 29, the ...
Wine and Art Festival extravaganza Saturday
A: Main, news
Wine and Art Festival extravaganza Saturday
By JERRY FINK MANAGING EDITOR 
September 3, 2025
What: Vision Eufaula Wine & Art Festival When: Saturday Sept. 6, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Where: 150 N. Front St. Information: 405-248-2992 or visit visioneufaula.org The fourth annual Wine and Art Festival ...
ePaper
google_play
app_store
Editor Picks
5 in race for state school superintendent
news
5 in race for state school superintendent
By Jennifer Palmer Oklahoma Watch 
September 3, 2025
So far, five candidates are running to lead Oklahoma’s public education system as state superintendent in 2026. Former Tulsa school board members Jennettie Marshall, a Democrat, and Jerry Griffin, an ...
DOC Director stepping down
news
DOC Director stepping down
By KEATON ROSS OKLAHOMA WATCH 
September 3, 2025
Oklahoma Department of Corrections Director Steven Harpe, one of the highest paid officials in state government, will step down on Sept. 30 to take a private sector job. “I’m extremely proud of my tim...
news
Class of ’65 reunion set for Sept. 12
September 3, 2025
Graduates of the Eufaula High School Class of 1965 will get together from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Friday, Sept 12, at the Legacy on Main Street, 224 N. Main St. Graduates of the classes of ’64 and ’66 are...
A site out of this world
news
A site out of this world
By MIKE BARNES 
September 3, 2025
In Eufaula, a town where gossip can outpace the mail, a story is slowly gaining momentum. It isn’t about the latest fishing tournament or Friday night football, but about a cosmic visitor called 3I/ A...
Rest, reflections, and farewells
commentary
Rest, reflections, and farewells
By JOE DORMAN OICA CEO 
September 3, 2025
OKLAHOMA CITY – I hope your Labor Day weekend was full of relaxation. I schedule a vacation each year with friends to get away over this holiday which allows me to “charge up the batteries” for upcomi...
Facebook

THE EUFAULA INDIAN JOURNAL
100 N. 2nd Street
Eufaula, OK 74432

(918) 689-2191

This site complies with ADA requirements

© 2023 THE EUFAULA INDIAN JOURNAL

  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • Accessibility Policy