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.

School Board Association honors Pippenger, Madewell
A: Main, news
School Board Association honors Pippenger, Madewell
September 17, 2025
OKLAHOMA CITY - Eufaula School Board President Jeff Pippenger and Checotah School Superintendent Monte Madewell were honored for their contribution to education during the annual Education Leadership ...
A: Main, news
Brace yourself for traffic disruptions
September 17, 2025
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation will begin its long-awaited street project on Main Street (SH 9) in downtown Eufaula next week. An ODOT spokesman said traffic control will begin Monday, Sept...
A: Main, news
McIntosh is Candidate for 2025 Miss Indian Oklahoma
September 17, 2025
Miss Janaya McIntosh of Eufaula is a candidate for the upcoming 2025 Miss Indian Oklahoma pageant. The Oklahoma Federation of Indian Women (OFIW) pageants offer young Native American women a chance to...
A: Main, news
Ford holding food drive
September 17, 2025
Ford dealers around the world are joining together to conduct the World’s Largest Ford Dealer Food Drive, now through Sept. 25. The local dealership where you may drop off food is Sam Wampler’s Freedo...
A: Main, news
LEA 2025 Golf Tournament Sept. 26
September 17, 2025
The 2025 Lake Eufaula Association Golf Tournament is just a week away, to be held Friday Sept. 26 at Arrowhead Golf Course, 3657 Main Park Rd., Canadian. Registration is at 8 a.m., shotgun start is at...
A: Main, news
POW/MIA Ceremony is Friday
September 17, 2025
On Friday, Sept. 19 the VFW Post 8798 Auxiliary will host a dinner in honor of soldiers who have not returned home from battle. The event will begin at 6 p.m. in the Post dining room on SH 9 east.
ePaper
google_play
app_store
Editor Picks
A: Main, news
Lake Eufaula Out of Darkness Walk this Saturday
September 17, 2025
Don’t miss the Lake Eufaula Out of Darkness Walk this Saturday, September 20. Come walk and show your support as locals bring awareness to suicide and how you can prevent it. “Being able to see the wa...
A: Main, news
Flag exchange drive
September 17, 2025
VFW Auxiliary 8798 would like to help you properly dispose of your worn out flags. We will exchange your worn 3x5 United States American Flag for a brand new one. Dates will be shared over the upcomin...
A: Main, news
Tribal Town Spelling Bee Sept. 27
September 17, 2025
The Eufaula-Canadian Tribal Town and the MCN Language Preservation Program will host the 10th annual Mvskoke Language Spelling Bee Competition on Sept. 27 beginning at 10 a.m. at the Eufaula Indian Co...
A: Main, news
Suspect awaits sanity decision in Minner case
By MICHAEL BARNES 
September 17, 2025
When a June 10 headline shook the community—Selby Minner, beloved blues musician and cultural icon, found dead—the shock reverberated through Rentiesville and far beyond. The one arrested for her murd...
Oklahoma Farm Bureau hosts 4th Annual Capitol Camp
news
Oklahoma Farm Bureau hosts 4th Annual Capitol Camp
By LaDonna Rhodes Staff Writer 
September 17, 2025
117 FFA and 4-H students from across the state convened at the Oklahoma State Capitol for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau’s 4th Annual Capitol Camp held Sept. 3 – 4. The camp was an immersive twoday experien...
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