Why Should You Care About Birthright Citizenship? Also, What's Happening in NYC?

Hi all –

We start with grim news. The majority of the Supreme Court just allowed the President to do as he wishes with birthright citizenship. The Executive Order "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" is willfully dishonest. The 14th Amendment enshrined what was already a fact for Americans: if you are born on this soil, you are a citizen. It was not simply a temporary measure in the aftermath of the Civil War. Of course the extremely profitable incarceration and deportation machine want to do away with it; the more technicalities which exist around citizenship, the more "problems" that can be found.

I realize the 14th Amendment sounds like an abstraction to a lot of people. I realize "the Constitution" sounds like that, too. And what doesn't sound like an abstraction to them is "some people have babies here, and those babies, because they're citizens, get services from the government. Isn't that stealing?" So we need to talk about why this is a big deal. Also, the lawyers are on television saying this is really a technical matter about universal injunctions. Can a lower court stop a policy from going into effect everywhere? Isn't that beyond its jurisdiction? When you put it that way, no one has any idea that the republic is almost completely undone, that your rights are whatever an armed masked stranger dictates.

So yeah, I've got to help communicate what's at stake. Birthright citizenship is necessary so states or anyone else cannot play games with citizenship. The immediate cause was states denying the freed slaves were citizens or had any rights. Congress, right after the Civil War, realized the problem was that and more. This country says it extends rights to as many as possible but plenty of places in it deny that. Don't just take my word; take the word of one of the Amendment's authors, John Bingham. Here's an excerpt from his speech, "One Country, One Constitution, One People:"

The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today....

if they [the states] conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property, the Congress is thereby vested with the power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow men.

The 14th Amendment is helpful in getting the Bill of Rights–freedom of speech, freedom to worship, right to bear arms, right to a trial by jury, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.–to actually apply to us as citizens. This was not strictly the case before the Civil War; the Supreme Court famously ruled in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Reflection on what needed to be done led to the famous "equal protection of the laws," which cannot be denied to any "person" (emphatically not "citizen").

OK, you say. What I just said has nothing to do with birthright citizenship! I think you can read between the lines a bit here. We don't really need to respect the arguments of people who only want to say racist stuff about their neighbors. To be absolutely clear: birthright citizenship is key to the whole scheme. I can talk until I am blue in the face about rights but no one has any if their citizenship is questionable. You don't really have rights if you have to show your papers for everything. That's not the law; that's security theater. The history of the freed slaves the President and his allies keep bringing up is relevant here, but not for the reasons they think. When birthright citizenship was being debated, some of the more racist, anti-immigrant members of Congress panicked that this would allow anyone from all over the world to settle in the U.S. and be citizens. As the justices in dissent noted, during the ratification debates, one Senator Conness from California had this to say:

Senator Conness of California (one of the Amendment’s lead supporters) confirmed on the floor “that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law.”

Thus, the "they're stealing our money by having babies here" rant isn't just racist. It's racism that in the 1860's would lead you to get chewed out by a U.S. Senator. (It's also grossly stupid: you mean to tell me that all the government funding we give Elon Musk to blow up rockets isn't consequential, but a kid going to public school is bad?)

As for the argument that there is a more technical distinction at play, I would urge you to focus on how the President brags that whatever he made up about birthright citizenship is now effectively law. Exhibit A:

As you can see, the President is not terribly concerned with the rights of anyone. He is, to be fair, interested in the integrity of the immigration process. Which almost sounds defensible, until you notice that he called "Birthright Citizenship" a "Hoax." The sheer disrespect for the idea that we are citizens because of where we were born, not on account of race or ethnicity, not on account of who cable news called "criminals" to juice ratings, is the heart of SCOTUS' decision. Because of how they decided, they let the man who called birthright citizenship a "hoax" dictate how the country operates until the proper lawsuit is created. One that won't ask for a universal injunction but something more fitting to their liking. In the meantime, you can expect violence to increase against anyone the government considers suspect. Just today, we got a report that a 6 year old with leukemia wet himself out of fear dealing with ICE operatives who want to deport them and their family. We're also hearing about the child of a veteran, born on a military base, rendered stateless because the U.S. didn't do the work of acknowledging him as a citizen. A scholar from another country might observe that the Supreme Court does not have any serious qualms about policies which support ethnic cleansing.

Also: I think it is always important to note that SCOTUS is a horribly corrupt institution. If you don't vomit reading about Alito taking what are essentially bribes from a billionaire, you can read about Thomas and the millions in gifts he has taken. These people do not care about anything but themselves. They are the last people who should have a say in what the law is.

Let's talk about Zohran

Normal country:

Zohran Mamdani, the NYC mayoral candidate threatened by this GOP crook, is a big deal. He beat creep Andrew Cuomo while being outspent 3-to-1. How did he do it? I like Ryan Broderick's explanation: he talked like a normal person about things he cared about. Take a look at this viral campaign video about the heavy costs street vendors pay to stay in business:

In just over a minute, you learn 1) NYC is horribly behind on permits for vendors 2) those who already have permits are running a scam, charging $22k a year in some cases for what should be $400 3) the cost gets passed to the consumer.

It's a smart use of short form video which plays well on social media. But if you focus on form rather than content, you miss the heart of what's happening. Mr. Mamdani cares to politically educate. He shows you the problem, shows you how government can fix it, and pledges to solve it. The problem is vividly illustrated, with those trying to make it in the U.S. clearly victimized while working hard and providing a service. The solution also is a rich text. Some idiot could say "well, if people didn't need permits, there wouldn't be a problem," but you can see for yourself that permits can protect those who work for legitimacy. It turns out that inefficient government is ripe for scams; a city which makes sure permits are issued can do a great good for its residents.

Think about how little political education happens in some bigger campaigns. I remember how Harris/Walz walked back one of their most effective attack lines, calling certain Republican candidates "weird." They were up in the polls saying this and then they stopped. Some Republicans in power have spoken about "space lasers," fixated on racist tropes, advanced deadly pseudoscience, attacked libraries and kids. That's weird! You need to say it because it is the beginning of a political education. Why are some people so weird and why do they want power? A rough answer: they want power because they're weird. They can't fit in so the desire to dominate is all they have. Again, this is a beginning. Once you've got a word which fits, which helps people articulate what they've been dealing with–an uncle who thinks all the people on Fox News are his best friends, for example–you don't just build a movement. You also get conversations flowing the right way. People start asking questions about those going ballistic at the dinner table or council meeting over, say, Hunter Biden, rather than defer to sensational, unrealistic demands.

NYC is giving a political education on all fronts right now. Brad Lander, who lost to Mamdani in the primary, who was arrested by ICE while escorting migrants in a courthouse, had this to say:

Lander: "It's just gross, racist bigotry. Meanwhile he's running an optimistic, upbeat campaign for a NY where everybody belongs, and I feel proud as the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in NYC to be supporting somebody who would be the first Muslim mayor—what could be more NYC than that?"

[image or embed]

— Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com) June 26, 2025 at 10:09 PM

Some people want to sit on Facebook and say terrible, paranoid things. Others fight for the rights of others. An incredible education in politics can be had for free, if one cares to look.