By a pissed off Trans Woman who's had enough of this shit

Your birthright citizenship isn't some goddamn gift the government graciously bestowed upon you. It's a hard-fought constitutional guarantee that power-hungry politicians have been trying to rip away for over a century. And guess what? They're at it again.

As Donaldo Shitsburger's recent executive order shows, the battle for birthright citizenship in America is far from over. The history of these attempts is a teeth-grinding saga of racism, xenophobia, and judicial manipulation that should make your blood boil. So buckle the fuck up, because we're diving deep into the dark, twisted history of how the government has repeatedly tried to deny people their rightful citizenship.

Before we get into the weeds of how they've tried to screw us, let's set the record straight about what birthright citizenship actually is. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, states in crystal-clear language:

Seems pretty fucking straightforward, doesn't it? If you're born here, you're a citizen. Period. This amendment was specifically designed to overturn the Supreme Court's vile Dred Scott decision from 1857, which had declared that Black people couldn't be citizens even if they were born free on American soil.

The amendment's authors deliberately chose inclusive language. They didn't say "some persons" or "white persons" or "persons with the right parents." They said ALL PERSONS. And they meant it.

But of course, that hasn't stopped government officials from trying to carve out exceptions and loopholes big enough to drive a fucking truck through.

The first major assault on birthright citizenship came in 1884 with Elk v. Wilkins. John Elk was a Native American man born on a reservation who later left his tribe, moved to Omaha, and fully integrated into American society. When he tried to register to vote, a government official named Charles Wilkins refused him.

Elk sued, arguing that as someone born in the United States, he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. But in a 7-2 decision that reeks of colonial bullshit, the Supreme Court ruled against him. They claimed that because he was born on a reservation, he wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth, so the 14th Amendment didn't apply to him.

Justice Harlan's dissent called this what it was - a steaming pile of horseshit that contradicted the plain language of the amendment. But the majority opinion stood, creating the first major crack in the foundation of birthright citizenship.

This wasn't just some abstract legal debate. This ruling effectively denied citizenship to an entire group of people born on American soil, stripping them of voting rights and other protections. Native Americans wouldn't receive full citizenship until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 - forty fucking years later.

In 1898, the government tried again to limit birthright citizenship, this time targeting the American-born children of Chinese immigrants.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were legal permanent residents. When he returned from a visit to China in 1895, immigration officials refused to let him back into the country, claiming he wasn't a citizen because his parents were Chinese subjects.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-2 that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a citizen. The Court held that the 14th Amendment meant exactly what it said: if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen, regardless of your parents' citizenship status.

Justice Horace Gray, writing for the majority, emphasized that the 14th Amendment was "declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect." In other words, it was meant to expand citizenship, not restrict it.

This ruling stands as one of the most important defenses of birthright citizenship in American history. Without it, the government could have continued to deny citizenship to countless children born on American soil based solely on their parents' national origin.

But even this decisive victory didn't end the attacks on birthright citizenship. Far from it.

Just when you thought the battle was over, the late 20th century brought new attempts to chip away at the 14th Amendment's protections. But thankfully, the Court stood firm.

In 1982, the Supreme Court handed down another crucial decision that strengthened birthright citizenship principles. In Plyler v. Doe, Texas had passed a law allowing public schools to deny enrollment to undocumented immigrant children. The state argued that since these kids weren't legally in the country, they weren't "persons within the jurisdiction" of the state under the 14th Amendment.

The Court told Texas to go pound sand. In a 5-4 decision, they ruled that undocumented immigrants absolutely ARE "persons" protected by the 14th Amendment, and states can't deny education to children based on immigration status.

Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, explicitly connected this case to the citizenship clause, noting that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in the Equal Protection Clause must be interpreted consistently with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause. This ruling confirmed that being physically present in the United States, even without documentation, places you within U.S. jurisdiction for constitutional purposes.

The dissenting justices didn't dispute the premise that undocumented immigrants were protected by the 14th Amendment - they just disagreed about whether education was a fundamental right. Even the conservative wing acknowledged the basic constitutional protection, which tells you how solid this principle really is.

Just three years later, in INS v. Rios-Pineda, the Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision that indirectly but powerfully affirmed birthright citizenship principles.

The case involved a Mexican couple facing deportation who had a U.S.-born child. While the main issues were procedural, what's striking is that NOBODY - not the government, not the Court, not a single justice - questioned that the child was a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born here.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) itself acknowledged that children born on U.S. soil to undocumented parents were citizens. When even the federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement admits this constitutional reality, you know the principle is rock-solid.

Despite these reinforcements, we're still fighting the same goddamn battle today. Politicians are still trying to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to exclude certain groups from citizenship.

The latest skirmish started when Donald McShitface signed an executive order on his first day back in office in January 2025, declaring that children born in the US to undocumented immigrants or to non-citizens on temporary visas would no longer automatically be citizens.

This isn't just unconstitutional - it's a fucking insult to the clear text of the 14th Amendment and the century-plus of Supreme Court precedent from Wong Kim Ark to Plyler to Rios-Pineda.

And yet here we are, with the Supreme Court hearing arguments in Trump v. CASA about whether nationwide injunctions blocking this executive order should be limited in scope. While the Court seems poised to keep the block in place for now, the fact that we're even having this debate in 2025 is mind-boggling.

Let's be crystal clear: These attacks on birthright citizenship aren't about constitutional interpretation or jurisdictional technicalities. They're about who gets to be American. They're about drawing lines between "us" and "them." And they're about using citizenship as a weapon to exclude people based on where they come from.

When the government tries to reinterpret the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to certain groups, they're not just making a legal argument - they're making a statement about who belongs in this country. And that statement is invariably steeped in the same xenophobic, racist bullshit that has plagued American immigration policy for centuries.

The children targeted by these policies didn't choose where they were born. They didn't cross borders without documentation. They were born here, on American soil, just like millions of other Americans.

To deny them citizenship is to create a permanent underclass of stateless individuals who live in the shadows, without the protections and rights afforded to citizens. It's cruel, it's unnecessary, and it's fundamentally un-American.

As of May 2025, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in cases related to Donald McStinkTrump's executive order on birthright citizenship. While the Court appears reluctant to address the constitutional merits of the order directly, focusing instead on the scope of nationwide injunctions, the stakes couldn't be higher.

Three federal judges have already ruled that the executive order is "blatantly unconstitutional," with one Reagan appointee stating that it directly contradicts the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. But the battle isn't over.

If the Court eventually upholds the order, it would represent the most significant restriction on birthright citizenship since Elk v. Wilkins. It would overturn more than a century of established law and affect countless children born on American soil.

Even if you were born to American citizens and your own citizenship isn't at risk, this fight should matter to you. Because once the government starts reinterpreting the Constitution to exclude certain groups from fundamental rights, no one's rights are truly secure.

The 14th Amendment doesn't just guarantee citizenship - it guarantees equal protection under the law. It's one of our most important constitutional safeguards against government overreach and discrimination.

When politicians try to erode these protections for political gain, we all lose something precious: the promise that in America, your rights don't depend on who your parents are or where they came from.

So the next time you hear someone spouting off about limiting birthright citizenship, remember this history. Remember John Elk and Wong Kim Ark. Remember that the words in the Constitution mean something, and that meaning doesn't change because some dickhead politician finds it inconvenient.

Birthright citizenship isn't a loophole or a technicality. It's a fundamental American principle that we've been fighting to preserve for more than 150 years. And that fight isn't over yet.

So what the hell can you do about it? Plenty.

The fight for birthright citizenship has been long and bloody, with victories and setbacks along the way. But the arc of history bends toward inclusion, toward recognizing the humanity in all of us.

Don't let the bastards drag us backward.

This whole clusterfuck leaves us with some seriously disturbing questions that no one seems eager to answer:

These aren't academic questions. They're the real-world implications of messing with birthright citizenship. And they should scare the shit out of you.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that birthright citizenship is just a "policy" that can be changed by executive order or that it wasn't meant to include everyone born on American soil, you tell them to go read their goddamn Constitution. Better yet, tell them to read the Supreme Court's ruling in Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray made it abundantly clear:

The 14th Amendment means exactly what it says. All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. No exceptions, no asterisks, no bullshit.

And that's worth fighting for.