LyrArc Article Gist
Birthright Citizenship Case at the Supreme Court of the US.- Arguments live from Courtroom at SCOTUS. History shows that much of the 19th and 20th century was spent keeping Asians out of the US, even the Chinese who built the railroads. One of the Chinese whose parents came to the US Wong Kim asked to stay and the Supreme Court ruled in that individual and single isolated case in 1898 that he could stay. Only after JFK and LBJ was immigration gradually opened to Chinese and Indians and Asians in general. By the end of the 20th century this went to the other extreme from no Asians allowed to birthright citizenship for Asian mothers to obtain citizenship in this way just by arriving in New York, clearly with no justification. Even Britain abandoned this idea of birthright citizenship in 1981,  with parentage required uder a new law, one parent citizenship required, 10 years of residence required. Even this relevant fact was not cited by the Solicitor General of the US when he presented the case to the Court in opening summary on April 1, 2026. With Britain removing itself from this practice, it makes no sense to practice birthright citizenship as there is such thing as the Republican view of this- it is the universal view now of all civilized modern nations. With one or two exceptions for unique reasons ( a largely unpopulated country) such as Canada, which may also amend this law. The fact that Asians were not allowed for a century even after some "coolies" built the railroads in the US does not mean it is now time to go to the other extreme to welcome all who come even under the most egregious means. Asians themselves will recognize and support this, now that the "coolie" culture and colonialism is long gone and Asians are part of the fabric of this country. None of this will be mentioned at the Supreme Court just esoteric argument around what a term was accidentally inserted in the case for the one Chinese admitted under that case in 1898 - "Under the jurisdiction thereof." And lawyers will argue around technical points, one more reason for the public disbelief in the SCOTUS. Yet most Asians can be grateful for the process initiated by JFK and LBJ that opened up lawful immigration to the US for Asians, and have the curiosity and eagerness to learn the history of this new Nation and its boundless energies that reshaped our world, to learn about its European heritage and cultures, not ask for more such as birthright citizenship. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Pregnant women should not be bringing lawsuits for getting birthright citizenship for their children says the US Supreme Court in June 2025. Judge Coney Barrett says in 6-3 deicsion of the SC that district courts cannot rule beyond their state on birthright citizenship or act as a decider on executive branch decisions.

LyrArc Article Gist
"The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift." The 14th Amendment was a repudiation of infamous Dred Scott decision and stood up for rights of black people, at no time was it intended to bring mothers from Asia or Africa to the US to get automatic citizenship for a child. 255,000 mothers a year with no connections to the US arrive here for automatic bithright citizenship- US Supreme Court rules "no" June 27 2025, and objects to mothers filing the lawsuits for their children when the mother has no legal status. Justice Coney Barrett in a 6-3 decision says the district courts cannot make laws over the decisions of the executive branch for the whole country as they have tried to do till now. This means birthright citizenship executive branch decision cannot be overruled across the nation. Most of the lawsuits are filed in states favorable to this or that approach.  In a few months the Supreme Court will address the automatic birthright citizenship issue at its core. Can a mother come to the US just to get her child US citizenship coming on a visitor visa. Much of the nation sees this as belittling the value of US citizenship.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
"Favorable" District courts are now being used to support illegal migration into the US that was rejected in the 2024 election. A District Court in DC makes a ruling on ending asylum "invasion" of US southern border, by questioning that millions of illegal migrants entering in one year alone is an "invasion." Even though it is publicly known that over 2.4 million people crossed the US southern border in fiscal year 2023. These District Court rulings are being given high priority by the US Supreme Court.  In the most recent ruling from last week the SC stated in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Coney Barrett on birthright citizenship that the law on the lawsuits can apply to the individual case not  be converted into a national injunction.  The situation of asylum seeking deteriorated in three ways, the Mexican government of president Lopez Obrador, Alejandro Mayorkas as Biden's selection for Homeland Security, himself an immigrant from Cuba, and the Biden administration not grasping the true extent of the crisis at the southern border with the unsettled situation in central America and the economic disaster in Venezuela. For the first time in the 400 year history of this hemisphere since the Spanish colonization by 1600 and American independence by 1800 the ideas of the Monroe Doctrine of the US protecting this hemisphere were ignored leading to the disastrous situation at the US borders, leading to fentanyl and illegal migration of such proportions. As a result of the election of 2024 and the public view of illegal migration the DJT administration is taking the approach taken by president Eisenhower in 1952 in Operation Wetback, seeking to return illegal migrants to their home countries.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The DJT Executive Order removing birthright citizenship on Jan 20, 2024 applies to future undocumented immigrants, and is based on the part of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution passed in 1866 by the US Congress and ratified by states in 1868.  The 14th Amendment came after the US Civil War and was aimed at giving emancipated black slaves citizenship. The US Supreme Court gave US citizenship to one Chinese immigrant in US vs Wong in 1898 following the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This did not set a precedent as at that time immigration from Asia was extremely restricted and the case was not intended to apply to millions crossing borders as this did not exist. For most of the period 1900-1960 Asian immigration was negligible because of the laws in existence until the Kennedy administration. Immigration from Mexico was mainly for US agricultural farms. When this led to a surge in illegal crossing of the US Mexican border in 1944-1954 a similar situation to today existed when Eisenhower conducted Operation Wetback in 1954 to deport about 1 million undocumented immigrants. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have redefined citizenship so that it is along blood lines, and not birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868. It uses the words-"All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction therof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  The US Supreme Court will have to interpret this language and intent of the Amendment whether they intended it to apply to children of unauthorized migrants coming illegally into the country. At the time it was passed after the Civil War it was intended to emancipate freed black slaves and give children of freed slaves citizenship and rights. Congress, the States and the Supreme Court will have to consider whether the situation intended to be addressed in 14th Amendment was slavery and not the refugees and economic driven illegal migrants flowing in at the rate of 1-2 million a year as happened in 2021-2023. The Supreme Court in its Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 supported the 14th Amendment at a time when illegal entry into the US was a tiny fraction of what it is today.   The 14th Amendment included under Section 4 on Debt the words- "Neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." The 14th Amendment was  in its intent designed to complete the work of the Civil War to free black slaves and give them the rights of citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution Section 1 says- "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Nation is faced with another Supreme Court decision as in 1868 for the 14th Amendment, in 2025 on birthright citizenship.  The 14th Amendment was written in the 19th century it had no concept of the 20th century and absolutely no idea of the 21st century we live in, unable to even conceive of conditions today, or even think of  setting rules for immigration today. It rejected the Dredd Scott decision of 1857 denying black people rights as citizens, restating the law of the land, had nothing at all to do with stating the opinion of the Judiciary on whether a mother flying in from Asia could secure US citizenship for a new born child by merely visiting the US. As in 1857, in 2025 the law is based on assumed historical facts as Lincoln said on Dredd Scott decision, that are not really true. Lincoln said in 1857- "That burlesque upon judicial decisions, and slander and profanation upon the honored names, and sacred history of republican America must be overruled, and expunged from the books of authority." The 14th Amendment was written to give black people the rights of citizens of the US, in a complete repudiation of the Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court of 1857 that deprived black people of rights as citizens because Judge Tanney said the British Empire had set up the institution of slavery in the American colonies and the British were responsible for the institution, little we can do about it. When by 1807 slavery was being banned in Britain and in 1838 totally banned in the British Empire. It created the idea that Americans were not the master of their destinies after the departure of the British to choose which institutions they would keep and which they would reject including slavery. Abraham Lincoln citing President Andrew Jackson said each the executive, the judiciary, Congress, and the common man were entitled to their own view of the US Constitution as they understood it. Lincoln also said Judge Tanney's decision in Dred Scott case was based on assumed historical facts that were not really true- Judge Tanney making no mention of the fact that in 1857 the British Empire had already abolished the institution for 50 years. The DJT Executive Order banning birthright citizenship shown here on the White House site has the title- Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. It is written in  simple language in 1 page -Purpose, Policy, Enforcement and Definitions, Provisions.  The purpose clearly states that the Dred Scott decision of the US Supreme Court in 1857 is what the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind when they drafted the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. A reading of the 14th Amendment makes this abundantly clear. The wording comes out at the outset reversing the Dredd Scott Decision of 1857. It's repudiation was why the Northern and Southern States fought the Civil War. The National Archives say that with Dred Scott decision to allow the spread of slavery to American territories in the West,  America moved one step closer to civil war. With such  momentous events in the history of the US 1857-1868 the framers of the 14th Amendment were not sitting down to write rules about what was right for America a century and a half later.    ...