Started By
Message

Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship

Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:50 pm
Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
22850 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 5:50 pm
This case was breezed over a few times in oral arguments today. There was lots of talk of Wong Kim Ark today but I found this way more interesting. Both Harlan II (whom Alito draws lots of inspiration from, as the article points out) and the Solicitor General were Eisenhower's men. Conservatives.

LINK

quote:

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.”


quote:

Both parents initially stayed in the U.S. in willful and surreptitious defiance of U.S. immigration laws. Yet here is what the U.S. Supreme Court, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, said on behalf of himself and five other justices: “The child is, of course, an American citizen by birth.”


Directly from the majority opinion:
quote:

As stated above, we have, in the instant case, a family consisting of two alien parents illegally residing in the United States and one American citizen child, age about two and one-half years. These respondents have been in the United States for a period of less than three years. Both arrived in this country as seamen. They have no other dependents or close family ties here. The record indicates that the male respondent may be able to obtain work as a Greek seaman and earn about $85 monthly."


It isn't disputed by the 2 justices that dissented:
quote:

“The citizen is a five-year-old boy who was born here and who, therefore, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities which the Fourteenth Amendment bestows on every citizen.” 


Further, it isn't even argued by the Immigration Board Of Appeals:
quote:

The Board stated:

"It is obvious that the American citizen infant child is dependent upon the alien parents for economic support, care and maintenance. Documentary and other evidence establish good moral character for the requisite period. The aliens have no connection with subversive groups."


And finally, the brief submitted by the Solicitor General at the time:
quote:

“In November 1951, their child was born in the United States and is a citizen of the United States.


Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
22850 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:35 pm to


No poli board legal scholars want to approach this one?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
473640 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:37 pm to
I already did
Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
22850 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:39 pm to
I meant poli board scholars in the pejorative sense, not the actual lawyers
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
473640 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:40 pm to
As I said earlier, it absolutely guts the muh footnote attempt at being clever.
Posted by WHS
walker LA.
Member since Feb 2006
3504 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:50 pm to
1951 America did not have the same issues that we have today. This is the obvious fat that democrats want to ignore. Illegal immigration is destroying this country and will be its downfall. We will die from within at the hand a millions of paper it’s until we are no longer recognizable. Trump knows this and this is why he wants to end birth right citizenship.

I used to never question birth right citizenship because how it was always done and in the constitution, but we can no longer think that way. It’s either Dave our country now, or watch our grandchildren be persecuted for being white and Christian in n the not so near future.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
85199 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:51 pm to
quote:

1951 America did not have the same issues that we have today. This is the obvious fat that democrats want to ignore. Illegal immigration is destroying this country and will be its downfall. We will die from within at the hand a millions of paper it’s until we are no longer recognizable. Trump knows this and this is why he wants to end birth right citizenship.

I used to never question birth right citizenship because how it was always done and in the constitution, but we can no longer think that way. It’s either Dave our country now, or watch our grandchildren be persecuted for being white and Christian in n the not so near future.


We didn’t use to have mass shootings at schools either. Does that justify eroding 2A in response?
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
67546 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:52 pm to
Every time I hear/read "the founders never intended" I just kind of reflexively tune out.
Posted by WHS
walker LA.
Member since Feb 2006
3504 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 6:54 pm to
There are ways to fix that as well such as not making schools a soft target. As long as the are soft targets they will continue to be prayed upon.

In the Wild West days there were a lot of civil unrest and lawlessness and they didn’t take our guns then nor will they now. Just fix the problem with common sense
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 6:57 pm
Posted by JimEverett
Member since May 2020
2229 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:12 pm to
The case is not relevant to the question before SCOTUS today. I mean, supporters of birthright citizenship might use it tangentially but is not going to hold much weight, if any.

Appeals will often not make an issue out of various questions that could be relevant for a variety of reasons. The most common being that the issue was not raised at the trial level.

The question of birthright citizenship was never before the Court in this case - therefore irrelevant to the question of whether birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
473640 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:18 pm to
"Common sense" is much lazier/worse to me.
Posted by deuceiswild
South La
Member since Nov 2007
4716 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:28 pm to
I think most people on here get caught up trying to argue the wrong point, and people like you simply don't understand what the argument really is.

You see, personally I don't care to argue or debate what the amendment says, or how it's being interpreted.

The point here is that it needs to be changed and stated more clearly.

That said, it seems you support things just the way they are. The question is.... why? How is it beneficial to this country to allow a random foreigner to come here for a weekend getaway and ten min after arrival dropping a baby and calling it a US citizen?
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
37013 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:32 pm to
Then find a way to rid ourselves of a written constitution. But since we have a written constitution the law is the law, codified and spelled out.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
473640 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:39 pm to
quote:

The point here is that it needs to be changed and stated more clearly.


That's what amendments are for
Posted by djmed
Member since Aug 2020
3967 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:42 pm to
Illegals get deported
If they have to take their citizen babies with them so be it
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
47353 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:45 pm to
That’s been the interpretation forever. That doesn’t make it correct.

You could argue that Hintopulos entered legally, was withheld ashore for medical reasons, then immediately after the birth of the child and it was safe for her to do so, sought to remedy her immigration status in good faith. Under current law, you can file for an extension after the fact, if circumstances prevent you from doing so at the proper time.

But I agree that this case is likely the best angle for the left.
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 7:48 pm
Posted by deuceiswild
South La
Member since Nov 2007
4716 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:51 pm to
quote:

That's what amendments are for


Fair enough. So where does SFP stand if amendment were proposed?

Something tells me you'd be against it and that you're fine with how things are now, but I'm open to listen. I'll likely regret it, I'm sure, but I'll listen.

This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 7:51 pm
Posted by CDawson
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2017
19936 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 7:52 pm to
quote:

used to never question birth right citizenship because how it was always done and in the constitution


No it’s not.
Posted by TenWheelsForJesus
Member since Jan 2018
11060 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:05 pm to
quote:

Then find a way to rid ourselves of a written constitution. But since we have a written constitution the law is the law, codified and spelled out.


Yes, let's let our country be ruined and our children raped and murdered by illegals because the pieces of shite in congress are being paid to destroy our way of life.

Brilliant plan.

Anyone supporting this as the "rule of law" is not American. They would be the people who paid the tax to the British instead of gaining their freedom.

If you complain about the debt, then it's even more stupid for you to support birthright citizenship as the "rule of law."
Posted by kbro
North Carolina, via NOLA
Member since Jan 2007
5321 posts
Posted on 4/1/26 at 8:14 pm to
quote:

Fair enough. So where does SFP stand if amendment were proposed?


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram