2 Apr 2026 4:05 pm
I'm sure you are aware the 14th Amendment was ratified under duress, the Southern States had no choice or elect to not have a seat at the table.Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑ Stop relying on **** sources.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birt ... f-barbara/
Consider, for example, the facts of a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1957, United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. In July 1951, Elizabeth Hintopoulos, an alien seaman and expectant mother in her second trimester, legally entered the U.S under rules that obliged her to leave within a month of her arrival. After seeking medical advice, she decided to stay ashore, unlawfully, beyond this interval. About a month after Elizabeth’s arrival, her husband Anastasios (presumably the father of her unborn child) reached the United States. He too was an alien seaman and he too unlawfully stayed in America beyond his legal visa period. In November, Elizabeth gave birth on American soil, proverbially under an American flag, to a son. Though the court did not tell us his name, let’s call him Adam. In January 1952, the married couple voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to U.S. immigration officials and asked that they not be deported, invoking Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which allowed officials to suspend deportation in situations involving “serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is . . . the minor child of [a] deportable alien.”
.....
What does today’s solicitor general say about Hintopoulos? He doesn’t. Hintopoulos goes entirely unmentioned in two merits briefs that together span more than 70 pages, despite the fact that a brilliant amicus brief by three of America’s most accomplished immigration scholars highlighted Hintopoulos above all other modern cases. The case was also prominently mentioned – including its key words “of course” – by another notable Princeton alum, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in last term’s closely related Trump v CASA case. The nearest that Solicitor General D. John Sauer comes to engagement is a quick reference to modern cases in which, according to Sauer, the “Court assumed that children of illegal aliens born here are U.S. citizens.”
Contra Sauer, Hintopoulous did not “assume” this point. Hintopoulos asserted this point. Obviously. Unanimously. Adam’s obvious citizenship was the entire pivot point of the case, the statutory prerequisite to the entire legal dispute. Adam’s rock-solid bulletproof citizenship was the express statutory reason that officials were allowed (but not obliged) to suspend deportation of his illegal-alien parents. (In the end, immigration officials decided not to suspend deportation and the court majority said that was OK. The dissenters would have reversed the immigration officials and required suspension of deportation.)
In today's world, I don't think it would pass the starting line.