What is Birthright Citizenship?

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

In the flurry of his first handful of days in office, Trump has handed down a wide assortment of executive orders.  All following the Project 2025 playbook.  All expected following the promises or threats he made in the campaign, touching on his favorite topics:  gender issues, government bureaucracy, isolationism, and immigration enforcement to name a few. 

Under immigration enforcement, Trump released probably his most controversial executive order.   Executive Order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.  A lot of words to make his end goal sound a lot nicer and more legitimate than it deserves.  Put simply, this is his order to end birthright citizenship.

Which raises the question asked today - what is birthright citizenship?

Put simply, birthright citizenship is the idea that citizenship in a country results from the circumstances surrounding one’s birth.  Not from race, religion, ethnic heritage, or creed, but by nature of birth.  In America, birthright citizenship is obtained either by being born in a United States state or territory or by being born as the child of at least one United States citizen, regardless of location.  The first essentially saying anyone born in America is an American, and the second saying the children of Americans are American wherever they are born.

It’s the simplest form of citizenship, in complete contrast to naturalization or the legal immigration process.  Immigrants become citizens through a naturalization process involving applications and interviews and tests and oaths.  Birthright citizens are born here.

The concept is one entrenched in our constitutional amendments.   The Fourteenth Amendment, a cornerstone piece of our jurisprudence, lays its foundation simply and perfectly in the first section of the Amendment. 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [emphasis added]

The Amendment was written as a response to the infamous Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) case, in which African Americans were denied citizenship regardless of the location of their birth or their status as free men (given the times).  The Fourteenth Amendment in response, confirmed the citizenship of those people and their entitlement to representation in our government.

It’s settled law and a foundational piece of our civil rights.

It’s been confirmed, affirmed, and expanded upon in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

And now, Trump is determined to destroy it, all to remove the possibility of ‘anchor babies,’ or women coming to America, legally or illegally, just to have their child born in America and become a citizen by birth.

The United States of America as a country is unique in many ways, but perhaps most striking in that there is really no true native child of the United States of America.  What I mean by that, is that the nation, as a country again, has always been a collection of immigrants and their children united not by race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the traditional markers of a country, but instead united by a set of ideas.  The borders of our country outlining primarily the bounds of the people held together by those ideas.  

In that respect, it makes sense that our citizenship generally was provided by the “right of the soil”, jus soli.  The idea that, indeed, this land was made for you and me, and that those who were born here, regardless of family history and background, could be part of that united idea.

It’s baked into the concepts and precepts that we teach and proclaim regarding what it means to be an American.  To be part of this great melting pot.  “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  The promise of coming here and that those born here are born in the “land of opportunity.”

In all, there are around 30 countries which maintain this idea of the right of the soil, most in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.  In some ways a recognition that this “New World” would have new ideas about citizenship and what makes a country.

Trump’s policy would be to revert to a very old idea.  The “right of blood.”  Jus sanguinis.  To be a citizen is to be born of citizens.  To be “full blooded American.”  As is that had any basis in our history.  

I don’t mean to diminish the concept citizenship being passed by parentage.  This is a part of the current basis for our citizenship.  It’s how American’s traveling abroad for pleasure, work, or duty, that happen to birth a child outside the United States, can still bring that child home and have it be a citizen.  

But it’s the exception or the outlier, not the primary rule.

I get it, to many, this is quibbling over semantics.  Over a small change in the workings of the law, but it represents a fundamental shift in how we perceive ourselves and our country.  If citizenship is only passed by blood, or granted to those we deem worthy through naturalization (which is a grueling process), then we are saying America is no longer an idea, but a defined set of people and it’s closed.  The Golden Door is slammed shut.

We’re not different than any other nation.  We’re not better or unique.  America as that great experiment is done.

And that seems to really be the case if we’re okay with sending ICE agents into an elementary school during school hours, as they were today in Chicago.

It is important to note that a federal judge has recently blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”  U.S. District Judge Coughenour in Seattle expressed  incredulity at how any member of the Bar could argue this order was Constitutional.  Judge Coughenour will hear further argument on February 6.

Of extreme irony in the matter, is how the United States Justice Department defended this order, by arguing that the children of Native Americans aren’t US Citizens.  That’s right, they argued that the people who have the most right to be considered part of this country are not citizens.  They relied on an old Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins from 1884, in which the court found because members of Native American tribes owe allegiance to their tribe first and foremost, that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as provided for in the Amendment and were then not constitutionally entitled to citizenship.  In the first place it’s a stretch argument and one overturned by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  In the second, it’s an incredible reach to apply it to today.

It just goes to show the extremes Trump will go to in order to make sure his agenda, or Project 2025, be achieved.  Damn the consequences.

Hopefully the rest of us can maintain the memory of what we were.

“‘Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!’ cries she

With silent lips. ‘Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’”

Big Questions 2025

  “Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.”

Voltaire

Much of human existence seems to be the pursuit of answers.  Pursuit of the right answers.  We have to find the right spouse, the right house, the right job, the right city, the right denomination, the right church, the right hobby, and so on, and so on, and so on.  Ad nauseum.

We’ve made education the regurgitation of right answers.  In our faith, we have to associate ourselves with the right theology.  We have to be associated with the right political party, and for much of the people I find myself surrounded by, that side is even named the “right.”

We’re convinced there are right answers to most of life, and we just have to find them.  This comes from a desire for certainty, a desire for stability.  We need answers because they set our lives right.  They make us  feel secure because everything is known.      

Think about how we approach our advisors - our doctors, our lawyers, our counselors.  We go to them for answers.  We want a diagnosis.  The correct legal remedy. The solution.  And we get very uncomfortable when the answer is “we don’t know.”

We’re really uncomfortable with the unknown.  With the uncertain.  We blow past the “we don’t know” to finally get to an answer.  We get second and third and fourth opinions.  Or in situations where there is truly no right answer, we seek to make one.  We look for signs and find them in the smallest coincidences.  We make a right answer.  We reduce things to black and white, we simplify so we can understand.  

I don’t know, but of late, I’m getting more comfortable with questions.  I’m getting more comfortable with “I don’t know.”  

To me, the truth is, questions are just more interesting.

Because questions lead to all sorts of interesting experiences.

We know this as kids.  Children live in a state of constant “why?”  It’s intellectual curiosity that continues to propel them into discovery, into experience, and into the unknown.

Perhaps today, of all days, on this monumental change in our society, questions are more important than ever.  There are titanic questions hanging in the ephemera, spoken and unspoken, that are filling our collective unconsciousness.  

Questions that matter.  

That are shaping the direction of our future.  Questions that will be imperative to discuss and evaluate. 

I say evaluate and discuss because it’s important to note we may not get to one right answer.  There may be no one specific answer that is right and everything else is wrong.  We may be able to identify a lot of wrong answers, but there may be a lot of ambiguity we still have to live with.

These questions are being raised through online social media.  Through news broadcasts and media.  Through dining room discussion.

They are popping up whether we recognize them or not.  And some are even trending as questions on our search histories.

Questions like -

• What is an oligarchy?
• What is fascism?
• What is a Christian?
• What is masculinity?
• Why does it matter?
• How do we proceed?

Heady.  Deep.  Though provoking.  Unanswerable?  Charged.  Divisive.  

All descriptions above could apply to these questions.  And all are reasons why the questions must be discussed.

So for the next several posts, that’s what I intend to do.  To raise the question, to explore why it’s being asked, and to address my thoughts on the question.  I ran a series in 2020 called Big Questions.  That focused on questions of faith.  Questions like, do my resolutions benefit only me, does my church look primarily just like me, who is my gospel excluding, and am i willing to yield?

Today starts Big Questions 2025.  And I hope you will be along for the ride.  We have to be able to discuss these things, to disagree on points, and come to resolutions.  To recognize the question behind the question and to help each other along in faith and love.

If we don’t, if we can’t, what are we even doing here?

“Test all things; hold fast to what is good.”

1 Thessalonians 5:21

The Theology of Natural Disasters

Our six a.m. men's Bible study got a little heady this morning.  We're working through an apologetics study, designed more to get us in the mindset of continuing conversations and asking questions.  To that degree, we've started raising questions that can be naturally posed by those that are seeking a deeper understanding of the faith or by those that will challenge different aspects of the faith.   Today we hit on a variation of the questions regarding the goodness of God.

"Why does God allow natural disasters?"

The question stemmed from the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria.  And while that formed the central theme, the questions got deeper and more complex.

"Are they really natural or caused disasters?  Are they natural/caused forces that existed before the fall or are they a result of sin?  Are they a form of judgment, natural/caused expressions of creation, or both?"

Not easy to discus when you are just getting your caffeine fix.  But it created an interesting discussion nonetheless.

We noted there has to be a natural component to the disaster.  The earth in and of itself is a creation and natural disasters can have specific functions in regulating the earth as creation.  As a living creation.  Look at the wildfires in our west, which are often responsible for clearing out old growth and making way for new growth.  Likewise, earthquakes coming from the result of tectonic plates rubbing against or smashing into each other.  This can result in new ground or from new ground, quite literally.

From there, we have identified a purpose for these disasters.  Whether they existed prior to the fall is another and much harder question.  If everything did not die, if death did not exist before the fall, it is unlikely these did as well, as often their purpose is to clear out the old and make way for the new.  Either way, in our current environment they can have some net positive effect, potentially. 

But even phrasing it like that, raises another question - positive in relation to what?  

Why is an event a disaster? Is it only from a "human" perspective regarding the loss of human life or property damage?

Put another way, if a hurricane strikes and devastates a deserted island, was there any disaster?

We focus on the human because this is the context is raised.  Part of the "why would God allow such loss" cry.  And in that frame of mind, we can rightly call them disasters, for they can have a great impact on human life and existence.  They can be great tragedies.  And it can lead us to wonder why.  To wonder if it is judgment, fate, or chance.  

I am greatly skeptical of anyone who can definitely state that a specific natural disaster is God's judgment. The one's we have described in the Bible all seem to have a supernatural component to them.  There is a prior proclamation of them as coming, a warning of destruction and then the supernatural event.  To ascribe God's judgment to an event afterward is stretching for a reason, in my opinion.

Such attribution often comes from those who deem that every event is one that God is controlling or causing.  That his sovereignty requires that He is controlling everything that occurs, as He is all powerful. But this does not have to be the case for Him to be all powerful.  There is a difference in having power and exercising it.  It's often in the restraint in using power that we see the greatest display.  After all, this is the idea of mercy and grace.

But if God does not cause the disaster, then we have the question of why God allows them to occur.  Why God does not spare the people?  The deaths, the tragedies, the loss.  Why does God not supernaturally intervene?

This circles back to the larger question of suffering that we have been exploring.  And there are a multitude of reasons that suffering occurs.  Sometimes it is the result of the consequences of our actions, of our sins.  If we keep building houses in a flood plain, it is likely they will flood and often.  Sometimes suffering is the result of other people's actions, of their evil.  Other times, it's to teach us a lesson, for some lessons we learn the hard way.  Or it is to prepare us for something that is coming ahead.

There are multitude of reasons why suffering occurs, even with an all-good God.  That doesn't change his status.  For what we see in the tragedies are how God can take the absolute worst this world has to offer and make something beautiful.  

We didn't come to any final answers this morning.  That's not the point.  It's to think, it's to discuss, it's to listen.  To ask questions and to keep the discussion going.

I just pray I'm more awake next Monday.

Paul's Mistake?

"After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. 'After I have been there,' he said, 'I must visit Rome also."

Acts 19:21

"Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost."

Acts 20:16

"And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me."

Acts 20:22-23

"After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Kos.  The next day we went to Rhodes and from there to Patara.  We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went on board and set sail.  After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria.  We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo.  We sought out the disciples there and stayed with them seven days.  Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem."

Acts 21:1-4

"Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seve.  He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.  After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.  Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, 'The Holy Spirit says, "In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles."'  When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem.  Then Paul answered, 'Why are you weeping and breaking my heart?  I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.'  When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, 'The Lord's will be done.'"

Acts 21:8-14

Continuing in our study of Acts, we come to the end of Paul's third missionary journey and read through a summary of the verses quoted from Acts 21.  This section continues to fascinate me.

There is an interpretation of these events that reads as if Paul disobeyed the Holy Spirit by proceeding on to Jerusalem despite an instruction not to and a warning of the consequences.

In reading commentaries, Paul's saintliness is so lauded that the commentator's cannot begin to believe that Paul would have erred.  An unwillingness to attribute any fault to him.  We see this in how many churches also treat Paul.  I continue to assert there are denominations that should more appropriately be called Paulists over Christians because of the inappropriate weight they place on Paul's letters.

Reading Matthew Henry's commentary, the directive in verse 4 is not mentioned, the warning is seen just a a preview of what awaits him, and the urging by his friends after Agabus' prophecy is seen as misguided and misplaced.  "But we see in them the infirmity incident to us all; when we see trouble at a distance, and have only a general notice of it, we can make light of it; but when it comes near we begin to shrink and draw back."  I believe this conclusion comes at the exclusion of the whole passage.

From a more contextual reading, I see Paul slipping into a very real danger Christians face in fervent service to the Lord - letting their own desires rush the general plan of the Lord ahead of his time table.  This was Abraham's problem in trying to rush God's promise, leading to the birth of Ishmael and a competing nation to that of Israel.

I see a similar pattern here in Paul. From chapters 19 and 20, we see that Paul had been led by the Spirit to proceed to Jerusalem.  This seems a general directive, a general direction Paul is to be traveling.  And God does give us these directions.  General parameters of where we are supposed to be moving.  Go to "the land that I will show you."

We also see that Paul had a great internal desire to get to Jerusalem as quickly as possible.  He wanted to get there by Pentecost.  We perhaps see the reason behind this desire in Romans 9:1-5.

"I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit - I have a great sorrow and anguish in my heart.  For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own raise, the people of Israel.  Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs is the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.  Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

Paul had a great desire to be back among his people, the Jews.  Though he knew and was fulfilling his mission among the Gentiles, he longed to be back home. 

Perhaps he was also desiring a great audience.  We know that Pentecost for the Jews was an important festival that included a pilgrimage.  It meant that there would be a great number of people in the city and the temple, just as there were when the Holy Spirit first came on the believers.

And from my reading, it seems possible that Paul used God's general direction, for him to go to Jerusalem, to accelerate that time table.  He sailed past Ephesus, missing another stop there and avoiding spending time in the Asian province.  Not wanting to chance another tense encounter.  And perhaps it's this rushing that leads to the Spirit's warning.

For the disciples in Tyre to warn him through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem.  Luke makes a point to record that this warning was coming through the Holy Spirit, not from the disciples' personal affection.  And the language used was emphatic.  They were exclaiming to Paul through the Spirit "Do NOT go to Jerusalem!"  To Paul's general directive, this was a specific instruction.  While he may be needing to move toward Jerusalem, now is not the exact time to go.

But Paul pressed on.

Because of this Paul gets a second warning, a stronger, visual warning.  This time reminding him what awaits him in Jerusalem.  Imprisonment at the hands of the Gentiles.  And Paul responds to this with what can be seen as a very noble and pious statement.  That he is ready to die for the cause of Christ.  

The problem occurs, though, when you are placing yourself in a position to die for Christ where Christ himself is calling you to live for Him.

We see from the whole context that Paul was always going to end up in chains and imprisoned, but what if his lack of heed to the Spirit's direction caused him to be imprisoned earlier than he should have been?  Perhaps he did not need to be a prisoner at all, as we'll see in later chapters how it is Paul's specific assertions that keep him in the court system when he could have been freed. 

Should he have spent more time in Asia and on his missionary journey instead of rushing to Jerusalem?  Would we have more letters and more guidance from his time with those groups of believers?

That is the great unknown.

But we do get a warning regarding running ahead of the Holy Spirit.  Regarding putting our own desires ahead of the specific direction of God.  Regardless of how noble the intention.

And from his prison letters to Corinth, to Ephesus, and to Phillipi, we see the grace of God.  To be able to take our mistakes and to make beautiful art with them.  To advance His kingdom and purpose.

Lord, I pray to follow Your direction and to not let the desires of my heart influence my steps in that way.  To not fool myself to believe my desires are noble, but to follow the letter of Your word.  Continue to move me and shape me as needed.

For further reading, I recommend Paul's Mistake, by Ray Stedman.

The Big Questions

I'm a fan of questions.  To readers of this blog, I don't think that will come as a surprise.  I'm a fan of raising questions, of thinking through questions, of asking the harder questions.

Questions are interesting, much more so than answers.  They are additive.  They continue conversations instead of ending them.  They further dialogue, debate, and discussion.  

Questions force us to acknowledge what we don't know and what we want to learn.  They force us to grow, to change.

They make us acknowledge what we really believe.

In that regard, questions are scary.  This is why we often do not want to take questions.  To be questioned.  We don't want to face the what we don't know.  To face the possibility that we are mistaken.  That we are wrong.

For the start of this new year, I'm going to start a new series focusing on questions.  On the big questions that are captivating me right now.  The ones that are challenging me and forcing me to struggle with them.  The ones that have surprised me.  The ones that need to be asked.

I won't purport to provide hard answers in any of these entries.  They will be thought explorations of where my head is at with each of them.  How I'm processing them.  And as is typical in my writing, it will probably ask several component questions as well.

I would love to have your input for each.

This post will serve as a hub for each of the subsequent posts.  I'll keep updating it with the new post links each day as well.  There is no set end to the series, but I have several percolating at the moment for the days to come.  I will also likely be returning to this series as new questions arise throughout the continuation of this blog.