2

Would it be fair to say that the 14th Amendment had the effect of simplifying laws pertaining to citizenship in the U.S.A.? Can the contrasts between the nature of citizenship before and after the 14th Amendment be briefly summarized?

Michael Hardy
  • 3,256
  • 14
  • 36
  • I think that amendment was intended to broaden citizenship to include black former-slaves. Whether that was a simplification, I can't say. – Bobson Aug 27 '18 at 12:19
  • I actually think it made Citizenship more complicated: Before, you could determine someone's citizenship mostly by just looking at their skin tone. White means Citizen. After the 14th, citizenship could be determined by investigating when and where someone was born. – abelenky Aug 27 '18 at 12:54
  • 2
    @abelenky : No. "White" could not have meant "Citizen". A white visitor from Europe was not a citizen, but could become so only by getting naturalized. – Michael Hardy Aug 27 '18 at 13:11
  • @MichaelHardy: In the context of the time and place of the 14th, a white foreign national would stand out. His accent, clothing and social standing would make it clear he was not a US citizen. It was still obvious who was and was not a citizen. – abelenky Aug 27 '18 at 13:39
  • Not really. Having black skin did not disqualify you from citizenship, as I understand it; blacks were only disqualified if they were imported as slaves or born to someone who was. Someone who had freely migrated be eligible for citizenship. Either way, the question isn't really about simplifying visual identification of citizenship; it's asking about simplifying citizenship law. – bdb484 Aug 27 '18 at 15:56
  • @bdb484: that’s incorrect. Just being black could be enough to disqualify one from voting or exercising the rights of citizens. – jmoreno Nov 03 '18 at 23:32
  • Source, please. – bdb484 Nov 04 '18 at 00:17
  • Voting has never been considered a right of all citizens. Citizens under 18 are not allowed to vote (and under 21 in most states before the 26th Amendment); in most states citizens imprisoned for felonies are not allowed to vote; before 1920 citizens who were female were not allowed to vote in most states (in some states they could vote for candidates for some offices but not for others); in the 18th century citizens who owned no property were not allowed to vote except in Vermont; and I suspect in some states before 1870 race was was an official criterion. – Michael Hardy Nov 04 '18 at 00:28
  • Somewhat subjective, not really a legal question – Aidan Jan 08 '19 at 22:58
  • @bdb484 : You wrote: "as I understand it; blacks were only disqualified if they were imported as slaves or born to someone who was". That is absolutely wrong. The ruling in Scott v. Sanford said that negroes are not citizens. – Michael Hardy Jan 10 '19 at 00:27
  • @aidanh010 : A question that is ONLY about citizenship laws is not a legal question? – Michael Hardy Jan 10 '19 at 00:30
  • @MichaelHardy I'm confused by your interpretation, which doesn't seem to square with the Court's explicit disclaimer that its holding applies only to "those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves." 60 U.S. at 403. Am I really absolutely wrong, or is there some way to reconcile that language with your broader interpretation? – bdb484 Jan 10 '19 at 17:17
  • 1

    Would it be fair to say that the 14th Amendment had the effect of simplifying laws pertaining to citizenship in the U.S.A.?

    In the case of people born in the United States, it simplifies the law significantly. In the case of people not born in the United States, it doesn't have any effect.

     – ohwilleke Feb 22 '19 at 03:37

1 Answers1

2

The primary intention of the 14th, and its largest effect, was of course to confer citizenship on blacks, particularly the former slaves. But it also constitutionalized the rule of "birthright citizenship" (aka jus soli), and removed any bars based on national origin or ethnicity.

Prior to the 14th, naturalization was a federal matter, and Congress could make what rules it pleased. But citizenship for natives was a matter of state law, or largely of unwritten common law, although after Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) blacks who were former slaves or whose ancestors had been slaves could not be made citizens.

The common law of England had long held that anyone born in the domains of the king was a subject, and the US followed that rule generally, in most states without ever reducing it to a statute. But state legislatures had the power to change that rule if they chose to.

In March 1790, Congress passed “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which established that children born to American men abroad or at sea were still considered “natural born citizens.” It also provided rules and procedures for those who immigrated to become citizens, providing:

That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within . . . the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen.”

Such would-be citizens had also to prove possession of “good character” and swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. The details were changed from time to time, but the general nature of the requirements remained unchanged all through the 18th and 19th centuries.

In the 1844 New York case Lynch v. Clarke, a court held that a daughter born in New York state to Irish parents was considered a U.S. citizen, even though her parents returned to Ireland.

[B]y the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. . . . The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. The only standard which then existed . . . was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.

So that rule (jus soli) was not in practice changed much by the 14th, but it was made explicit and unchangeable except by later amendment. Laws on naturalization remain subject to Congressional action, and have been changed at various times.

See also this question here and its answers.

David Siegel
  • 113,558
  • 10
  • 204
  • 404