Thread by @GREENESJ333

Roger Froikin @rlefraim wrote, "Just for information:

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon make a decision affecting citizenship—birthright citizenship—so here is some explanation for those interested.
1)

Citizenship in the USA was not really defined until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, other than in the qualifications of the President and Vice President, where both offices could be held only by someone born in what became a U.S. state.
2)

The 14th Amendment made all those born in the United States or naturalized as citizens of the United States of America. These could be called constitutional citizens.

There have been two Supreme Court cases questioning this kind of status.
3)

One, in 1898, was United States v. Wong Kim Ark, citations 169 U.S. 649; 18 S. Ct. 456; 42 L. Ed. 890; 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1515, in which a woman sued for citizenship based on her birth in the USA to two Chinese citizens, but not American citizens,
4)

who were legal residents of the USA. The Supreme Court ruled that she qualified to be a citizen because of her birth to legal residents of the USA. Note that her parents were “legal residents,” and
5)

this is key to what the Court may now rule, as the case currently concerns children born in the USA to people who were neither citizens nor legal residents—excluding illegal migrants, tourists, people on student visas, etc.
6)

The other case, Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), established that a naturalized citizen was also a constitutional citizen, even if he or she moved elsewhere. Constitutional citizenship cannot be removed unless there was fraud involved in the naturalization process.
7)

The other type of citizenship is statutory citizenship. Statutory citizenship is, for example, the citizenship of U.S. citizens born outside the USA to American citizen parents, as per 18 USC § 1401.
8)

Historically, Congress defined this by listing terms of American residence, how to apply for a child by the American parent or parents, etc. The courts have ruled that statutory citizenship cannot be revoked,
9)

though Congress can change standards for who can be recognized going forward only.

Congress can change what constitutes the process and requirements of naturalization, and
10)

naturalization-acquired citizenship can be revoked if naturalization was in some way fraudulently acquired and/or if Congressionally mandated requirements were omitted or evaded by the applicants or even by the officials involved.

And here are the questions.
11)

It has been discussed that some populations of migrants brought into the USA have come on what are called Temporary Protective Status (TPS) visas. This applies to large populations of Somalis who moved during the chaos in Somalia and
12)

large numbers of Afghans who fled the Taliban. But TPS status was never envisioned to lead to citizenship—hence the term “temporary.” Should they have been eligible for citizenship at all?
13)

Another example is the large number of Arab migrants who went through the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem in the 1970s—Arabs from all over the region who came to Jerusalem when resident visas were issued, without any of the statutory requirements...
14)

(proof that the person would not be financially dependent on the state, police record reports from anywhere one lived, workable English language knowledge—all absent), under the supervision of a consular official (fired after an investigation)...
15)

who was living with a terrorist activist (later arrested). Now, if these migrants (most resettled in Michigan and Illinois) should not have been issued visas and then had a path to legal citizenship, as a result of violating the rules to get a resident visa,
16)

should they be citizens, and should their children be citizens (one now a U.N. member of Congress)?

And those who received citizenship by lying—phony marriages, false statements on immigration documents, and so on—
17)

should have their citizenship revoked because of fraud. Every federal immigration form states that answers must be truthful, and statements made falsely are subject to penalties if there is perjury.

Things to consider."
18)

Prediction: I expect, from the questions Supreme Coiurt Justices asked during the hearing, that the Justices will continue Birthright citizenship but restrict it to the children of legal residents of the USA, agreeing with the 1898 case result. It will be a 6-3 decision.
19)

@threadreaderapp unroll