User:Olsen8/Birthright citizenship in the United States

1st edit:
In 1856, the case “Dred Scott vs. Sandford” was about a slave named Dred Scott. He was living in Illinois at the time, where slavery was prohibited after the Missouri Compromise. Dred Scott filed suit for his freedom, saying that because he lived in a free state that should make him a free man. After he lost, Dred Scott then began a new case in court. The vast majority of the opinion from Sandford came from Roger Taney, who kept referring to Article III of the constitution. It was still being stated that no one who was a descendant of slaves could be a citizen of the United States. Taney also ruled under the Fifth Amendment that slaves were property, and that any other law which would dispossess a slave owner of that property- is unconstitutional.

2nd edit:
At this time, it was mandatory for the former confederate states to abolish slavery, and to swear their loyalty to the United States. It was also required that they would repay all of their war debt before being allowed to come back and be a part of the union. The first part that was challenged during this Act, was from the President, Andrew Johnson. He actually denied the constitutionality, as well as the propriety of the Act. Under President Andrew Johnson’s plan or his Reconstruction Policy, the states in the South took on, and established a sequence of laws that were put in place to restrict free black people. These laws also made sure that they were still available to be put in the labor force and work. The laws extremely denied black citizens equal protection, as well as due process.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, was the very first law that was put in place to assure that all United States Citizens were equally protected under the law. Although the act did not succeed in protecting social and political rights, such as the right to vote.

3rd edit:
This case happened at a time when citizenship in the United States was separated because of subordination. Certain races/ ethnicities were “ranked” lower than others, and different groups were not treated the same. There were many different degrees to how this was happening, and the American Indians were clear examples of the subordination. During this case, being excluded from having citizenship started to become geographically motivated- based on where you were from. The Chinese were also targets of this, and the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case was a restriction to this exclusion. Lawmakers had attempted to get Indians to agree to receive citizenship, and John Elk’s lawsuit was a portion of a new requirement that said American Indians would not be able to stay an unassimilated noncitizen of the United States.

4th edit:
Jus Soli is the law that declares citizenship is received at birth within the area of the state, no matter what citizenship the children's parents are. Jus Soli is the main basis for the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

5th edit:
To revoke birthright citizenship from children born in the United States, with parents who are unauthorized immigrants would end up resulting in a very notable increase in the size of the unauthorized immigrant people in the United States.