Correcting Coleman Hughes

 It was about five years ago, I think, that I discovered Coleman Hughes, a very heterodox Columbia graduate who was then podcasting independently.  In 2023 I was at one point booked to appear on his show to talk about States of the Union, but he apparently decided to take a break from podcasting and that never happened.  Coleman, who I believe will turn 29 or 30 this year, isn't afraid of anyone, sees pretty clearly, and in his public persona, at least, always stays on a very even keel.  Some time ago he started podcasting regularly on The Free Press.  I initially regarded him as an anti-woke center leftist like myself.  He is no Trump administration supporter, but he has moved significantly to the right, most notably regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  

Over the weekend I heard him interview a novelist named Lionel Shriver about her new novel, which deals with the issue of immigration.  She believes that we have gone on with open borders for too long and she also believes that we should limit immigration from some parts of the world--particularly Muslim parts.  I agree about open borders but I don't think I agree about Muslims, but that is another story.   I was brought up short when they began talking about the birthright citizenship clause of the Constitution. Both of them agreed that it was put in solely because of slavery, and that it shouldn't be applicable to anyone who happens to be born here, whatever their legal status.  I was appalled to hear this, and I just went to The Free Press to try to explain why in a comment on the post. I found that the comments will be closed, so I am putting my comments here and hoping that Coleman, or a producer of his, has a google alert for his name that will bring this post to his attention.

The 14th Amendment was passed to deal with the aftermath of slavery, but it did not introduce the concept of birthright citizenship to American law.  Birthright citizenship was English common law and the American republic used it from the beginning.  To verify this--I had already looked into it--I asked one of the ultimate authorities, Google AI, "Didn't the US government recognize birthright citizenship before the 14th amendment was passed?"  Here is the answer.

Yes, birthright citizenship existed as an established legal principle in the United States well before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The amendment primarily codified and protected a rule that had already prevailed in American law for decades. 

Recognition Prior to the 14th Amendment

Before 1868, the U.S. government recognized birthright citizenship through several mechanisms: 

English Common Law (Jus Soli): Early U.S. law adopted the British principle of jus soli ("right of the soil"), which held that anyone born within the nation's territory and allegiance was a citizen.

Judicial Rulings: In the 1844 case Lynch v. Clarke, a New York court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to temporary alien visitors was a natural-born citizen under the common law.

Federal Assumptions: Early Supreme Court cases, such as Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804), assumed that persons born in the U.S. were citizens.

 They might have gone further than that.  The Constitution states that any "natural born citizen" is eligible to become president of the US.  English law had clearly defined "natural born subject." The great jurist Blackstone wrote, "Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," as well as children of subjects born overseas.

Like Justice Scalia's Heller decision on gun control, a Supreme Court decision to redefine birthright citizenship would reverse precedents going back beyond the founding of our republic.