Thanks so much for your wonderful introduction to the work of actively understanding immigration policy! I do think it's important to know as full a history as possible of the 14th Amendment, including its racialized and genderized limitations that lasted far beyond the end of the Civil War. It took a few more decades for us to reach the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision conferring citizenship on people of Chinese descent who born in the US. Interestingly, the whole case started because Wong was living in El Paso and went a few blocks south, to Juarez (Mexico) for a visit. He was stopped at the bridge, trying to come back to his home.
And you mention that Native Americans did not get citizenship until 1924. I don't consider this a side issue, mainly because the notion of tribal membership versus people living according to white, Anglo norms was operative here (if you belonged to a tribe you weren't a citizen, whereas if you had left the tribe and were living as an individual, you could be a citizen).
In addition, until well into the 20th century, women born in the US and living in the US who married non-citizen men had to take on the citizenship of the husband (it did not work vice versa). These women lost their ability to vote. As a side issue, I believe Emma Goldman was deported because she'd married a US citizen and obtained his citizenship but later divorced him, or he died, or both, and the government then deemed her a deportable foreigner and booted her out. She'd lost the jus-soli-by-proxy perk of her ex. But in converse, native-born US women could lose their jus soli by marrying.
The long and short of it is that decades went by before jus soli., with related issues, was fully settled in the US. Nevertheless, it's now been settled for generations. Seemingly and sadly, however, it's still politically vulnerable.
Thanks so much for your wonderful introduction to the work of actively understanding immigration policy! I do think it's important to know as full a history as possible of the 14th Amendment, including its racialized and genderized limitations that lasted far beyond the end of the Civil War. It took a few more decades for us to reach the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision conferring citizenship on people of Chinese descent who born in the US. Interestingly, the whole case started because Wong was living in El Paso and went a few blocks south, to Juarez (Mexico) for a visit. He was stopped at the bridge, trying to come back to his home.
And you mention that Native Americans did not get citizenship until 1924. I don't consider this a side issue, mainly because the notion of tribal membership versus people living according to white, Anglo norms was operative here (if you belonged to a tribe you weren't a citizen, whereas if you had left the tribe and were living as an individual, you could be a citizen).
In addition, until well into the 20th century, women born in the US and living in the US who married non-citizen men had to take on the citizenship of the husband (it did not work vice versa). These women lost their ability to vote. As a side issue, I believe Emma Goldman was deported because she'd married a US citizen and obtained his citizenship but later divorced him, or he died, or both, and the government then deemed her a deportable foreigner and booted her out. She'd lost the jus-soli-by-proxy perk of her ex. But in converse, native-born US women could lose their jus soli by marrying.
The long and short of it is that decades went by before jus soli., with related issues, was fully settled in the US. Nevertheless, it's now been settled for generations. Seemingly and sadly, however, it's still politically vulnerable.
👏👏👏 Yes! Thank you for adding this important context, Debbie.