Immigration-FBA and ADOS
A look on both sides
Presently there are a plethora of articles, videos, and whisperings about Birthright Citizenship, and who can or cannot be deported. It is very confusing for regular people to get a grasp on, and I believe the central issue that most people cling to when trying to figure it out is the “perception that the 14th Amendment is unchallengeable,” when in reality it sits on very shaky ground. What I mean is, people base their whole “legal standing on the land” upon the 14th Amendment, as if it is some sort of “catch all” that is going to shield them from becoming a targeted class. It’s not.
The whole “house of immigration cards” is predicated upon this “14th doctrine.” What if the 14th crumbles? What if it is challenged for cause? I have covered this previously here:
The Dubious14th Amendment
What most people don’t know is that the Yankee Union Army was the ONLY reason why the 14th Amendment ever became a fixture in American Jurisprudence. They don’t know Southern states were forced to participate at the point of a bayonet. They don’t comprehend the political climate of the states united at that time, and they don’t have a firm grasp of law…
Of particular interest to this topic will be those who call themselves “African,” descendants of slaves, descendants of “Ellis Islanders,” and foreigners in general of a certain class. My “information focus” however is the “brown people” who based their entire citizenship “get down” on an Amendment, the 14th, that was forced upon the Southern states by force of arms.
In support of my position I have prepared a report addressing some of the possible areas of concern. This topic I also covered in my 2019 book, “Abrogated.”
ACADEMIC-LEGAL MEMORANDUM / LEGAL BRIEF
Title: The Constitutional Citizenship Status of Descendants of Slaves: A Legal and Historical Analysis of the 13th and 14th Amendments in Light of Dred Scott v. Sandford and Related Federal and California Law
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum evaluates the constitutional, statutory, and jurisdictional foundations of citizenship as they pertain to the descendants of enslaved African Americans. It considers the legacy of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the language and legal impact of the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the validity of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. It also identifies applicable federal statutes, California state law, and unresolved jurisdictional issues that affect the modern legal status of the descendants of slaves.
II. FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
A. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)
Declared that Black people, whether enslaved or free, were not U.S. citizens.
Held that they had no legal standing to sue in federal court.
Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
B. 13th Amendment (1865)
Abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime.
Did not confer citizenship, personhood, or legal standing.
C. 14th Amendment (1868)
Purported to grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S.
Ratified under duress and military occupation.
Legal scholars and constitutional historians have questioned its validity.
Key Issue: If the 14th Amendment is invalid or unenforceable, descendants of slaves may not have constitutionally grounded U.S. citizenship.
III. FEDERAL STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
A. 8 U.S.C. § 1401 (Nationality at Birth)
Defines who is a national and citizen of the U.S. at birth.
Based on birthright (jus soli) doctrine derived from the 14th Amendment.
If the 14th Amendment is invalid, this statute is potentially void as applied to descendants of slaves.
B. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27-30)
First federal law to define citizenship regardless of race.
Declared all persons born in the U.S. (excluding Indians not taxed) to be citizens.
However, was passed before the 14th Amendment and relied on contested congressional authority.
C. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights)
Allows persons to sue for violations of constitutional or federal rights.
Its enforceability depends on the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses.
D. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 (Criminal Civil Rights Violations)
Criminalize conspiracies to deprive rights and official misconduct.
Relate to violations of rights "secured by the Constitution," thus tied to the 14th Amendment.
IV. CALIFORNIA STATE LAW
A. California Constitution, Article I, §1
Affirms that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
Includes protections regardless of race, color, or ancestry.
B. California Government Code §11110 et seq. (Civil Rights Protections)
Prohibits discrimination by the state or its agencies based on race, color, religion, or ancestry.
C. California Code of Civil Procedure §352.1
Extends statute of limitations for civil rights violations arising out of hate crimes or civil rights abuses.
D. California Evidence Code §1105
Permits the use of historical discrimination and systemic bias evidence to establish motive or intent.
E. California Civil Code §51 et seq. (Unruh Civil Rights Act)
Protects individuals from discrimination by all business establishments in California.
Applies to descendants of slaves and allows direct civil actions.
V. MODERN LEGAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS RAMIFICATIONS
If the 14th Amendment is invalid:
Citizenship claims under 8 U.S.C. §1401 become constitutionally ungrounded.
Remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1983 may be questioned.
State-level civil rights protections (e.g., under California Constitution, Civil Code §51) gain importance.
Despite formal protections, descendants of slaves face enduring legal and structural inequalities. These include mass incarceration, denial of reparations, unequal access to remedies, and systemic civil exclusion.
VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Dred Scott ruling excluded Black Americans from citizenship and legal protection. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery but did not create civic identity. The 14th Amendment, which claims to do so, may have been unlawfully imposed. As such, the citizenship status of descendants of slaves rests on potentially invalid constitutional ground. Modern federal and California statutes offer civil rights protections, but their constitutional foundation may be vulnerable. The long-term effects are visible in continued legal exclusion, inequality, and denial of remedies.
VII. HISTORICAL APPENDIX
1787: U.S. Constitution ratified; slavery allowed.
1857: Dred Scott declares Black people non-citizens.
1865: 13th Amendment ratified; slavery abolished.
1866: Civil Rights Act passed.
1868: 14th Amendment ratified under coercive circumstances.
1964: Civil Rights Act codifies federal protections.
2013: Shelby County v. Holder weakens voting rights protections.
VIII. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIETAL IMPACTS
The denial of personhood has led to:
Multi-generational trauma and racial identity conflict.
Distrust in government institutions.
Societal disparities in education, wealth, and health.
Continued denial of reparations and redress.
These effects stem from structural denial of legal status and recognition that originated in Dred Scott and persists despite formal constitutional amendments.
IX. REFERENCES
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).
U.S. Const. amend. XIII, XIV.
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30.
8 U.S.C. §1401, 42 U.S.C. §1983, 18 U.S.C. §241–242.
California Constitution, Article I, §1; Civil Code §51 et seq.; Government Code §11110; Evidence Code §1105; Code of Civil Procedure §352.1.
Raoul Berger. (1977). Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Harvard University Press.
Finkelman, P. (1997). Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533.
West, C. (1993). Race Matters. Beacon Press. (finis)
///////
Not being one to take an issue without weighing both sides, I researched and generated a report that may afford some possible avenues of redress. That report is here:
LEGAL DEFENSE BRIEF:
Title: Defense of Citizenship and Civil Rights Status for Descendants of Slaves: Statutory and Constitutional Remedies Under Federal and California Law
I. INTRODUCTION
This legal defense brief is constructed in response to the constitutional challenges raised against the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment and the resulting uncertainty surrounding the citizenship and civil rights status of descendants of African slaves in the United States. This defense utilizes federal statutory law, California constitutional and statutory protections, and recognized civil rights doctrines to affirm the legal standing, rights, and remedies available to descendants of enslaved people, regardless of any questions surrounding constitutional ratification processes.
II. FEDERAL DEFENSE: STATUTORY CIVIL RIGHTS AUTHORITY
A. 8 U.S.C. § 1401 — Citizenship by Statute
This federal statute affirms that individuals born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are U.S. citizens. This includes descendants of slaves, as they are born on U.S. soil and subject to federal and state law. Even if the 14th Amendment is questioned, Congress has express authority under Article I, Section 8 to pass naturalization and citizenship laws.
Defense Position: 8 U.S.C. § 1401 remains in effect as a valid statutory enactment independent of the 14th Amendment, and it affirms the citizenship of all individuals born in the United States, including descendants of slaves.
B. Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27-30)
Passed prior to the 14th Amendment, this Act explicitly recognized all persons born in the U.S. (excluding Indians not taxed) as citizens. It provides enforceable rights to make and enforce contracts, sue, be parties, and give evidence.
Defense Position: The Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants a statutory form of citizenship and remains a viable legal basis for the protection of African American civil rights regardless of the constitutional amendment framework.
C. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 — Enforcement of Civil Rights
§ 1981 guarantees equal rights to make and enforce contracts.
§ 1983 allows legal remedy when a person acting under color of law deprives another of rights secured by federal law.
Defense Position: Even in the absence of 14th Amendment legitimacy, these statutes provide actionable remedies for descendants of slaves who face discrimination or deprivation of rights.
D. 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 — Criminal Protection
These provisions allow federal prosecution of those who conspire to deprive constitutional or statutory rights.
Defense Position: Individuals and officials who deny rights to descendants of slaves may be subject to criminal prosecution under federal civil rights law.
III. CALIFORNIA STATE LAW DEFENSE
A. California Constitution, Article I, § 1
Declares inalienable rights to all persons, including life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
B. Government Code § 11135 and Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act)
These codes prohibit racial discrimination by state and private actors, respectively, regardless of federal constitutional interpretation.
Defense Position: Under California law, all individuals are protected from discrimination based on race, ancestry, or national origin, and state law grants civil remedies for violations.
C. Code of Civil Procedure § 352.1
Allows the tolling of statutes of limitations for civil claims arising from discriminatory or abusive practices, offering long-term redress opportunities.
Defense Position: Descendants of slaves may pursue claims that reflect ongoing or systemic harms arising from historic denial of rights.
D. Evidence Code § 1105
Permits use of historical and systemic discrimination patterns in proving motive, intent, or knowledge in civil rights claims.
IV. ALTERNATIVE AND SUPPLEMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS
A. Declaratory Relief (28 U.S.C. § 2201)
Federal courts can declare the rights and legal status of parties where there is an actual controversy, such as denial of citizenship.
B. Habeas Corpus and Due Process Petitions
Descendants facing state violence or detention may assert violations of due process under Article I, § 9 of the U.S. Constitution and California state law.
C. International Human Rights Remedies
Descendants of slaves may assert rights under:
UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent
Defense Position: U.S. treaty obligations support the civil and human rights of African American descendants even if domestic constitutional claims are in question.
V. CONCLUSION
The legality of civil rights protections for descendants of slaves does not rest solely on the 14th Amendment. Congress and the states have passed numerous statutory protections, including 8 U.S.C. § 1401, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1983. California state law independently guarantees equal protection and legal remedy for discriminatory conduct.
Regardless of the legitimacy of constitutional amendments, legal citizenship and enforceable civil rights exist through statutory, state, and international law. This robust body of law ensures that descendants of slaves maintain lawful status, legal remedies, and protected rights in modern civil society.
VI. REFERENCES
8 U.S.C. § 1401. Citizenship at birth.
42 U.S.C. § 1981. Equal rights under the law.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights.
18 U.S.C. § 241–242. Civil rights criminal provisions.
California Constitution, Article I, § 1.
California Civil Code § 51. Unruh Civil Rights Act.
California Government Code § 11135.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 352.1.
California Evidence Code § 1105.
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8 (Naturalization Clause).
UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
Raoul Berger. (1977). Government by Judiciary. Harvard University Press.
Finkelman, P. (1997). Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow. The New Press.
West, C. (1993). Race Matters. Beacon Press. (finis)
I believe that it is going to take a lot of education and a lot of rational deduction by the population to “jimmy,” or pry this land out of the state of emotional imbecility, and general ignorance that it is currently under. I mean, people spend so much time, effort and revenue on focusing on the divide. People focus of the divide, rather than the divider, and the divider can be found within a person’s own mind. Race, religion, politics, nationalism, all created constructs, all created fictions, and all very real to most people.
History evidences different racial groups on this land at some point all receiving the same treatment. Whites came here as slaves under the headright system first. Then they enslaved “Indians” to support the colonies. Then they elevated “Indian slavery” all over the colonies and surrounding territories. Then they brought in “a few” Africans as servants for the British. Then all brown people became targets for enslavement, or export to foreign lands. It’s a dirty game. Did it ever stop? I have covered this previously here:
Pet Peeve-"Americans" To Africa
“They swear by All Mighty God that they are indeed of you; but they are not of you: yet they are afraid (to appear in their true colors).”
The immigration issue is not going away, nor is the emotional reactionism. The NEWS will make sure that we see the most grimy and awful of things, and let’s be clear, “It is kinda grimy.” It does have an emotional effect upon people with a soul, however one has to constantly remind themselves that “that is the purpose.” The media has a job to pull emotional strings. “It is kinda grimy tho.”
Emotions aside I suspect this matter will have to be decided by the Supreme Court. When “that” happens, that is when the real “fun” begins. Nobody on either side is going to like that inevitable court ruling. Let’s hope it’s years away.
Lord Have Mercy