Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trump aims to end birthright citizenship, says American citizens with family here illegally may be deported [View all]BumRushDaShow
(157,049 posts)33. That was part of why it was put in place
although the enslaved (and their descendants) were not only NOT considered "citizens", but were not even considered "humans" and were instead designated as "property" (i.e., the term "chattel slavery" ).
See "Dred Scott v. Sandford" -
Facts of the case
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. After losing, Scott brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no “negro” or descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
(snip)
Conclusion
7–2 decision for Sanford
MAJORITY OPINION by Roger B. Taney
Held portions of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not as a person.
(snip)
The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, Taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. After losing, Scott brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no “negro” or descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
(snip)
Conclusion
7–2 decision for Sanford
MAJORITY OPINION by Roger B. Taney
Held portions of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not as a person.
(snip)
The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, Taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
I expect it would have also covered those illegal European immigrants who were or became indentured servants.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Trump aims to end birthright citizenship, says American citizens with family here illegally may be deported [View all]
BumRushDaShow
Dec 2024
OP
So if these people were to apply for a passport, in any country, they couldn't
bucolic_frolic
Dec 2024
#1
tRUMP must have missed the part in middle school about how to amend the Constitution.
groundloop
Dec 2024
#5
I guess the point is, with that kind of support for birthright citizenship, amending is unlikely.
SunSeeker
Dec 2024
#16
Yup and unfortunately illegal immigrants are a tool by the Republicans in office to distract the voters.
cstanleytech
Dec 2024
#21
Snowballs chance in Hell of getting the needed number of States to Amend the Constitution.
cstanleytech
Dec 2024
#14
Hmmm..."possibly removing the American citizen family members of those deported"
jmowreader
Jan 2025
#42