The Fundamental Lie Behind Trump's Birthright Citizenship Supreme Court Case

"On this week's Amicus podcast, Dahlia Lithwick spoke to Anna O. Law, the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights at CUNY Brooklyn College. Her new book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship, will be published on March 24. You should not listen to the oral arguments in this case without understanding the long and complicated history of American citizenship."

"Because so many of us approach this issue with an imperfect understanding of the American history of migration, deportation, citizenship, and nationality, a whole lot of bad originalism seeps into the legal discourse about an issue so crucial that the drafters of the 14th Amendment chose to locate it in the Constitution itself."

"The biggest myth about American immigration is that until the federal government started enforcing our borders in the late 19th century, it w[as unrestricted]. This mythology about how migration worked throughout American history is belied by actual historical fact, by actual political practice."

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara regarding whether the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause applies to children born in the United States to non-citizen parents. The case hinges on interpreting the constitutional language about birthright citizenship. Understanding this case requires knowledge of American history regarding migration, deportation, citizenship, and nationality. Many legal arguments about this issue rely on flawed originalism because people lack proper historical context. Constitutional scholar Anna O. Law discusses how widespread myths about American immigration and citizenship contradict actual historical facts and political practices. Her research reveals that common understandings of how citizenship has been handled from the Colonial era onward are fundamentally incorrect, particularly regarding federal border enforcement and immigration policy.

Read at Slate Magazine