Category Archives: Justice Chronicles

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 46: Thoughts on Birthright Citizenship, Trump And The Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply
I have a running joke that I read Supreme Court opinions so you don’t have to. If a decision comes down that I find interesting I call the Supreme Court and have them send me a copy of the opinion (and yes, America, your tax dollars pay for this). I did this back in May when I wrote about Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on tariffs.

On June 30, 2026 the court wrote their opinion on Trump v. Barbara. A quick synopsis: on July 28, 1868, in shortly after the Civil War the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. It states that “[a]ll 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.”

This has become known as “birthright citizenship” and the most proximate purpose was to grant citizenship to newly released slaves. But the understanding also normally expanded to anyone who was born here and this became an issue as we saw huge numbers of people immigrate to the United States in the decades since. Ellis Island opened in 1892 and from then to 1954 about 12,000,000 men, women and children came through their gates. Immigrants weren’t automatically made citizens but any children born here were.

The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in 1898 in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Mr. Ark was born in San Francisco around 1870 to Chinese immigrants. In 1882 Congress passed (and the President signed) the Chinese Exclusion Act which prohibited Chinese people from becoming American citizens. Mr. Ark sailed back to China to visit his family and, on his return in 1895, was denied readmission into the United States. He went to court, arguing that he was made a citizen at birth. By a 6-2 margin the Supreme Court agreed with him and he was allowed reentry.

In 2025 President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 refuting this. He argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” denies citizenship to anyone born in the United States to a mother who is unlawfully here (and whose father isn’t a citizen) or anyone born to parents who are in the United States temporarily (e.g. on a student or tourist visa).

Ok maybe this wasn’t a quick synopsis. But the court ruled that the Executive Order is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship remains the law of the land. So here’s my interpretation:

Both sides honed in on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As an aside President Trump believes that the 14th Amendment was meant only for the children of former slaves but the Court didn’t even mention that.

The majority held that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies only to four categories:
  1. Children of diplomats: If your mother is in the United States only because she is a diplomat working for a foreign government, you’re not automatically a citizen.
  2. Children born on foreign flagged ships in an American port: If you were born aboard a foreign ship in American waters.
  3. Children born to foreign occupiers: If your mother was in the United States as a member of a foreign army occupying land in the United States.
  4. Children born to Indians (Native Americans) on a reservation: If you were born on a reservation you were considered a citizen of that nation; it was called a “domestic dependent nation.” This became moot in 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law.
The minority opinion argued at great length that you cannot automatically become a citizen unless your parents were “permanently domiciled” in the United States, that is, owed no allegiance or loyalty to any other nation or sovereign and had no intention of returning. Only by proving absolute and eternal loyalty to the United States could your children be granted automatic citizenship. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that any interest in or loyalty to another country of sovereign, no matter how small, bars your children from being citizens. Furthermore, if you are not here legally there is no way you can be loyal to the United States as you have already shown a disregard for our laws.

OK, so this is my blog and it means I get to write my opinion. This should surprise nobody but I agree with the majority and am frightened that this wasn’t a unanimous decision. Here are my reasons:
  • Let’s begin with the case of undocumented persons (ie here illegally). I hold that people who came here without documentation didn’t come here with the intent of breaking our laws. They came because they were hungry, or fleeing violence, or just hoped to make a better life for themselves and their children. I think this calls us to reform our immigration system, not to exclude good hardworking people.
  • Immigrants came to our shores for different reasons and had different views on their homelands. In the 1970s many Americans of Irish descent supported the Irish Republican Army in their quest to break free of British rule. According to the minority opinion these Americans would be denied citizenship because of their support of Northern Ireland.
  • I live in the same neighborhood as the University of California, San Diego. Many are here under student visas and wish to stay here after they complete their studies but have difficulty navigating the Byzantine process of gaining permanent residency. They are bright, motivated, hard working and would greatly benefit our nation. Their status has nothing to do with them and everything to do with our broken immigration system.
  • As a subset we also have people who come here intending only a temporary stay but change their mind when they see the possibilities that not available to them in their home countries. Again, this says more about us than about them.
Finally, on a personal note. My father’s parents were both born in Canada and arrived here shortly before 1918. They came because they knew they would have more opportunity for a good life here and they were right. They had 7 children between 1920 and 1931. Five of them were sons. Of the five sons, four served in World War II or Korea or both. One of them served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. And while they loved the United States they never stopped caring about Canada; one of my favorite childhood memories took place the summer of 1973 when we took my grandmother back to Canada to visit her surviving siblings. If you believe my grandparents weren’t true Americans don’t tell me. I won’t take it well.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 45: Limits On The Power To Impose Tarriffs

Posted on by
Reply

I periodically read through Supreme Court decisions if the subject interests me and on February 20, 2026 they decided the case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. I read this so you don’t have to.

President Trump has always believed incorrectly that a trade deficit is bad and it means other nations are taking advantage of us; he has used tariffs (taxes on imported goods) as way to limit imports. But because imposing tariffs has the same effect as collecting taxes it’s often been left to Congress.

There have always been exceptions and Trump held that in 1977 Congress gave him broad authority to impose tariffs in case of emergencies. He further held that trade deficits and imported drugs have created just that emergency.

In a 6-3 decision the Court found that President Trump exceeded his authority and struck down his tariffs. The majority consisted of Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.

The 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, gives the President broad authority to act when necessary. But the majority held that it was never intended to include tariffs and that if Congress intended to include tariffs it would have said so.

The dissenting opinion held that in times of emergency (that the President has the power to declare) require extraordinary measures and curtailing them would harm the country.

I agree with the majority. While I agree that the President should be given broad authority in many areas, these tariffs are outside of the law. The trade deficit does not harm our country and imposing tariffs will do nothing to impede the importation of illegal drugs. Bravo, Supreme Court.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 44: Kash Patel: I Am Not A Drunk!

Posted on by
Reply

First off, apologies to President Richard Nixon (1913-1994) who, in the midst of the Watergate Scandal told the American people: “I am not a crook”. Less than a year he resigned.

Current FBI director Kash Patel was the subject of an article in The Atlantic magazine (unfortunately the article is behind a paywall but it’s easy enough to find the highlights for free). The article, based on numerous interviews with numerous sources, claims that Director Patel has shown a pattern of excessive drinking both in Washington D.C. and Las Vegas.

In response Patel is now suing the Atlantic for for $250 million for defamation. Of course the easiest way to defend yourself against a defamation charge is to show that the article was accurate. But for Patel to win he has to show that the magazine either knew the article was false or used “actual malice.” In other words, he has to show the magazine intended to attack Patel and was reckless.

This comes from a now famous Supreme Court case from 1964, New York Times Company v. Sullivan. The Times was sued for minor errors in an ad that ran in the paper. They were sued by someone (Sullivan) who claimed he was defamed but the court unanimously stated that minor, honest errors don’t constitute defamation.

President Trump and many of his supporters want to have this case overturned which would allow public officials to sue more easily if they don’t like the coverage they are receiving. I don’t think Patel really expects to win this case but he knows it will make points with his boss.

Of course, if he doesn’t want this kind of coverage he could also moderate his drinking. Just sayin’

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 43: What’s Wrong With The Save Act? Glad You Asked

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago I published an article about voter fraud and recognized that as much as President Trump and the Republicans falsely claim that large numbers of non citizens vote, it’s just not true. Simply put, they are developing strategies to suppress voting and sow doubt about the accuracy of elections.

President Trump has gone all in in his call for a bill he calls the Save Act. It requires everyone to show proof of citizenship to register to vote, and he claims he won’t sign another bill until this passes. If you listen to him and his minions they tell you the reason is obvious. Why shouldn’t we demand proof of citizenship before we register someone to vote?

Again, glad you asked. Here’s a partial list of my concerns:

  • It proposes a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent and nearly all cases are simple mistakes. You can read an excellent article here. There’s also no evidence that fraud has changed the results of an election. If you’re not a citizen and attempt to vote (even if you’re here legally) you’re guilty of a felony and are subject to possible deportation. Who would risk that for one vote?
  • It’s not as simple as it sounds. Proponents argue that the bill isn’t retroactive (ie, if you’re already registered to vote you don’t need to do anything) and your Real ID driver’s license will suffice. It’s true that you don’t need to show proof of citizenship, unless you move or change your name (e.g. if you get married). Your Real ID license will only be accepted if you live in a state where your citizenship status is on your ID. Right now only Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington do that. My California Real ID states this: “This license is issued as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits.” I wasn’t able to find recent data on what percentage of drivers have Real ID but if you don’t board an airplane you don’t need one. A license without Real ID won’t suffice anywhere.
  • If you don’t have a Real ID from those five states or a passport your best alternative is to get a certified copy of your birth certificate. I was born in Washington D.C. and I can apply online. It goes through http://www.vitalrecords.org. It’s a process but as far as I can tell there is a $125.00 online processing fee, a $38.95 DC State Government Fee, and an optional $12.00 Qualifying Review fee. They recommend you pay an additional $20.00 for UPS Air Shipping Delivery that will allow you to track your shipment. I checked a few other states and it appears the $!25.00 online processing fee uniform but the state government fee is different.
  • OK, still with me? Good. Now if you changed your name when you married you’ll also need a certified marriage certificate to show your new name. Fortunately I didn’t change my name when I got married but if I did I’d need to go through (you guessed it) http://www.vitalrecords.org. It’s another $125.00 online processing fee and in California a $22.00 State Government Fee.
  • During the Jim Crow era attempts were made to prevent poor people from voting using poll taxes. It was just what it looks like: you had to pay to vote. Opposition to these poll taxes culminated in 1964 with the passage of the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. But if the Save Act requires certified documents to prove citizenship and citizens need to pay to acquire these documents, aren’t these poll taxes?

This isn’t an exhaustive list of my concerns but it’s a good place to start. Obviously if Congress passes it and President Trump signs it into law there will be lawsuits. But I think we can save time and money by just walking away from this now and recognizing that this is a solution in search of a problem.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 42: We’ve Finally Found Evidence Of Voter Fraud

Posted on by
Reply

Ever since the 2016 election President Trump has falsely claimed there is widespread election fraud. He lost the popular vote in 2016 but claimed it was because over 3 million illegal aliens voted. When he lost the 2020 election he demanded that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find” enough votes to give him a victory in Georgia.

Of course Trump has never provided evidence of any of his charges and most of us assumed voter fraud is nearly nonexistent and virtually never intentional. But we’re learned recently about Harry Wait. Harry was convicted a few days ago of requesting the ballots of Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine (Wisconsin) mayor Cory Manson.

Funny thing, ol’ Harry is a Republican. He claims he did it to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Of course, he just proved is isn’t easy as he was easily caught. He attempted to defend himself by claiming his actions were criminal but not nefarious.

Yeah, right. If you rob a bank to show how easy it is to rob a bank, you’re still guilty of bank robbery.

There’s no date for sentencing but he may face up to six years in prison.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 41: Dobbs v. Jackson

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous post I promised to read and discuss two Supreme Court decisions that were released in June: Dobbs v. Jackson and New York State v. Bruen.

I have (finally) read through both with my trusty highlighter. I likely won’t discuss New York v. Bruen. It wasn’t as interesting as I had hoped.

On the other hand, Dobbs v. Jackson was both dense and interesting. It will be a while before I plow through another Supreme Court Decision. So let’s dive in:

Overview: You have to give me props for reading and commenting on a judgement when I never attended law school. Then again, neither did Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. I welcome feedback as long as it is thoughtful and not obscene.

Majority Opinion

  • The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito. It was clear to me that despite his testimony that the 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion warranted respect he didn’t give it much. Much of it appeared (to me) to have been written a while ago. The state of Mississippi prohibited abortion after 15 weeks gestation; it did not ask that the states have final authority or that Roe be overturned. But Justice Alito went far beyond the facts of the case to overturn Roe. Law students are taught to find the narrowest ruling on a case.
  • He wanted to place his opinion in the vaunted arena with Brown v. Board of Education. In 1896 the Court ruled in Plessy v. Feguson that public places could be segregated (separated by race) as long as the accommodations were “separate but equal.” In 1954 the Brown decision recognized that separate was never equal and segregation was unconstitutional. Brown was seen universally as correcting the mistake of Plessy. In the same way Justice Alito felt that Roe was wrongly decided from the start and he was correcting a previous mistake.
  • Justice Alito and many of his fellow conservative jurists describe themselves as “originalists,” that when deciding a Constitutional issue we should look back to the original intent of the Constitution’s framers. This view presents a few problems, including this: the Constitution enshrines slavery (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3). They respond by pointing out that the 13th and 14th Amendments prohibit slavery. In this context Justice Alito goes back to 1791 (when the Constitution was ratified) and 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was passed). But in the years since courts have had to adjudicate all sorts of issues that didn’t exist then. The 4th Amendment protects our “persons, houses, papers and effects” from unreasonable searches and seizures. But the courts have extended that to include our phones, cars, and computers. The 2nd Amendment ensures the existence of a “well regulated militia” but in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) the court ruled that anyone could keep a firearm in his home for protection. Those of us who are not originalists see the Constitution as a living document and while the understanding of 1791 and 1868 matter, they do not hold supremacy.
  • Lest you think this is an anti court screed, allow me admit to one of Justice Alito’s points. When Justice Blackmun wrote Roe in 1973 he divided pregnancy into three trimesters with different government interest in each. Since then we’ve looked at viability (when the fetus can reasonable live outside the womb). But the trimester distinction is a legal and not medical metric and viability has changed over the years. I don’t believe this should rule when an abortion is legal. That said I think Justice Alito overreached in his decision.
  • Finally, I conclude this with a warning. When the decision came down that the right of abortion is not guaranteed by the Constitution it led to concern that other similar issues (marriage equality, consentual sex and access to birth control) may also come under scrutiny. All these issues were decided by the Supreme Court. Lest you think I’m exaggerating, this is what Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion: “[I]n future cases we should reconsider all of this Courts substantive due process precedents including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Conservative government entities may look at this as encouragement to overturn those decisions. Interestingly, Justice Thomas (who is black) is married to a white woman, and he did not include the court’s prohibition against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

Dissenting Opinion

  • Both sides acknowledged that Roe held particular respect as a previous decision; the phrase in these circumstances is Stare decisis, “to stand by those decided.” The dissenting opinion (written by Justice Stephen Breyer) argued that Roe was not a mistake and should not have been overturned.
  • The minority argued that Roe ensured that a woman has autonomy over her body and her health. Just as the government has no authority over a man’s body and health, so too with women. The fact that only women can become pregnant does not give additional government oversight to them.
  • Roe has been in effect since 1973 (nearly 50 years) and in that time women have been able to make important and permanent decisions over their lives (e.g. sexual activity and marriage). Changing the rules now places an unfair burden on women.
  • Roe also protected the private relationship between the woman and her doctor. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy and overturning Roe places someone else in the room.
  • Previous to Roe abortion was available if the woman resided in the state where abortion was legal or if she had the ability to travel. This discriminates against women who live in states that prohibit abortion and are not able to travel.

My opinion

Again, I recognize my lack of legal training. On the other hand I did read the whole thing. So here’s where I stand.

Two facts make this difficult: only women can become pregnant and we’ve never come to a consensus when a fetus becomes a person. For centuries many believed that life began when the woman could feel the baby’s movement in her womb. Scientific advances in the last century have only made things more difficult: the phrase “life begins at conception” ignores the fact that conception is a multi step process and we continually learn more about it. Pregnancy is a process and finding a fixed point where life begins continues to prove elusive.

When we think about women who seek abortions it’s too easy to label them as murderers. But by and large they are women who find themselves pregnant and believe that abortion is the only option left. Simply put, the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and we know how to achieve this. We need to teach sex education in schools and make birth control much more available. We need to teach young women that they can say no and we need to teach young men that they need to take responsibility for their actions.

I have several friends who describe themselves as “oops babies,” in other words they were unplanned but not unloved. They had the good fortune of being part of a family that could afford them (financially and emotionally). This is complicated but the more services we provide to these families the better.

Finally, despite anything you may be thinking, I am 100% pro life. I see abortion as a tragedy but allowing the courts to decide on this just makes it worse.

Thanks for reading.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 40: Abortion and the Right To Bear Arms

Posted on by
Reply

Each year the Supreme Court ends its session in June and oftentimes our nation eagerly awaits a few major decisions. It’s a little known fact but anyone can contact the Supreme Court and they will mail you a bound copy of the opinions. I’ve ordered copies of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (abortion) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (gun control). I had hoped to read both decisions before writing about them but I won’t receive these opinions for a few weeks and I didn’t feel I could wait to at least something. I’ve already written about Dobbs in January

So think of this as a preview (for your consideration).

In 1973 the justices ruled in Roe v. Wade that no state could ban abortion. The majority opinion was written by Justice Harry Blackmun (1908-1999) and ruled that any decision concerning a woman’s health belonged only between the woman and her doctor. Government held no role in this.

Opposition to this ruling came swiftly. The Catholic Church condemned it immediately and evangelical Christians took it on in the early 1980s. They argued that the primary relationship wasn’t between mother and doctor, but between mother and unborn child. They argued that the unborn child was a person from the moment of conception and was due all the rights of any person. Abortion, simply put, was murder.

Since I haven’t read the Dobbs opinion yet I don’t know what reasoning they chose to overrule Roe, but I’ll let you know as soon as I know.

The gun control case appears to make a decision in fairly narrow grounds. All 50 states allow someone to conceal a gun when he is out in public. Some require a permit and a few, including New York, make granting a permit more difficult. Nine states (including New York) require a resident to apply and show cause. That is, he or she must show a need for additional protection above and beyond the need for ordinary citizens. I imagine that would include someone who has a restraining order against someone with a history of violence or an off duty police officer.

Again, I haven’t read this opinion but I will be happy to share mine when I have one.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 39: The First Monday In October

Posted on by
Reply

Historically the Supreme Court begins its term on the first Monday in October. Most of the time this date means little to anyone who doesn’t follow the court. But this year, well, it’s a different story.

For much of its history we’ve seen the court as being above politics and their decisions were unpredictable. Not so much today.

Today most descriptions of the court tell us that there are six conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barret. There are also three liberals: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

This matters because this year they may render a decision on an issue that has divided our nation for more than sixty years: abortion. Before 1973 the ability of a pregnant woman to terminate (abort) her pregnancy depended mostly on where she lived and how much money she had. In 1971 a pregnant Texas woman wished to end her pregnancy but she lived in a state where abortion was illegal. She filed a lawsuit claiming that Texas violated her right to privacy and the case, Roe v. Wade made it to the Supreme Court.

On January 22, 1973 the court decided, by a vote of 7-2, that abortion in the first trimester (13 weeks) of pregnancy was within the rights of the mother and cannot be outlawed. Pregnancies in the 2nd trimester (14-26 weeks) could be terminated with restrictions and pregnancies after 26 weeks were protected. Since then it’s been assumed that abortion was unlawful when the fetus/child was viable, that is, could live outside the womb. Opinions differ but it’s generally held that a child at 24 weeks can live outside the womb (full term is 40 weeks). It didn’t take long to divide the country.

Those who opposed abortion identify as Pro Life and those who supported abortion identify as Pro Choice.

At first the only strong Pro Life voice in the United States was the Catholic Church but by the early 1980s they were joined by Evangelical Christians

Since then these groups have formed an uneasy alliance and virtually all their energy has focused them on overturning Roe v. Wade. During the 1980s this became a cause for the Republican Party and since 1984 it’s been enshrined in their platform. Republican Presidential candidates since then have all promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.

We may be on the cusp of that. Of the 9 justices all six who are listed as conservatives have been appointed by Republican presidents. During their confirmation hearings they all promised not to have preconceived opinions on abortion and would decide any case on its merits.

Nobody believes that. As I write this the Court has agreed to hear the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Mississippi passed a law that prohibits abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy. Since this case was filed Texas passed a law that prohibits abortion after the 6th week of pregnancy (often before the woman knows she’s pregnant). If the court finds in favor of Mississippi it will, in essence, overturn Roe v. Wade.

Cards on the table, I’m pro life. I know any number of people who describe themselves as “oops babies.” In other words their conception was unplanned and unexpected, but not unloved. I’m not naive and I’m not certain that we will ever get to zero abortions. But I believe we can look to Switzerland for guidance. Theirs is a three pronged approach. They provide sex education in schools, they make birth control free and universally available, and they work to raise the socioeconomic level of all their citizens so that nobody chooses abortion out of economic desperation.

Their abortion rate isn’t zero but it’s pretty low. But reversing Roe v. Wade also won’t eliminate abortions in the United States. It will simply allow states to write their own laws (as they did before 1973). Mississippi and Texas will certainly outlaw abortions but states like California and New York certainly will not. Women with enough money will simply travel to states that allow abortion.

But perhaps most troubling of all, women in those states without the ability to travel find themselves with few options. Some of them will choose to have illegal abortions that often lack the safety measures they need.

Some will say that people who choose to break the law shouldn’t complain about bad outcomes. But many of these women are barely past being girls. Some pregnancies are not consensual and some of them are the result of sexual abuse by someone they knew who broke their trust.

Simply put, overturning Roe v. Wade won’t get us to a pro-life nation. I fear it will draw us further away.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 38: What Makes Someone an American?

Posted on by
Reply

Many years ago my cousin married a man in the Air Force and for much of his career they moved from base to base. Their son was born while the family lived in Tripoli, Libya (Northern Africa). When he was about 10 the family lived in Southern Virginia and his classmates asked him where he was from. But when he told them he was born in Africa they refused to believe him. “You can’t be from Africa. You’re not Black.” Full disclosure: they didn’t use the word “Black” but you get the point.

In 2006 Virginia Republican Senator George Allen ran for reelection. As is the custom, Mr. Allen’s opponent hired a young man to follow his campaign and report back. The man, S.R. Sidarth, was born and raised in Virginia but was dark skinned as his parents immigrated from India. When Mr. Allen learned of Mr. Sidarth at a rally he said this to the crowd: “This fellow here over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent… Let’s give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.”

Both groups assumed that your skin color was determined by where you were born and that you have to be white to be a “real” American when biology tells us that skin color is determined by our DNA. And our Constitution tells us that a person is an American (citizen) by either being born here or by becoming naturalized.

I’m writing this now because of recent violent incidents against the AAPI (Asian American Pacific Islander) communities over the false belief that COVID 19 is their fault. They are often told to “go back to where you belong.” Because of the shape of their eyes they are perceived to not belong.

But immigrants from China have been coming since the 1850s and their story is nearly identical to the European immigrants around the same time. They worked hard at jobs that others wouldn’t take, they raised their families, and wanted nothing more than a better life.

The next Asian person you meet may well be a 4th or 5th generation American. And even if he’s not, COVID 19 didn’t come because he was Asian, but because the virus found a host. The virus spread because of Americans who refused to take precautions (mask, distance, etc.). It may be easier and more fashionable to blame Asians, but the only way out of this pandemic is to stop the spread of the virus, not find someone to blame.

By the way, I “look like” an American but two of my four grandparents were born in Canada.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 37: Hail To the Redskins? Time for a Change

Posted on by
Reply

I grew up in Woodbridge Virginia, 25 miles south of Washington D.C. I inherited from my father a love of football and especially the Washington Redskins. As a teenager my bedroom was filled with Redskins posters, bedsheets, and clothes. I knew that the term referred to American Indians but I didn’t understand the racism.

To be fair Washington D.C. has a long history of racism. Until 1850 slaves were bought and sold on the National Mall.

The Redskins began in 1932 in Boston as the Boston Braves. The next year their owner George Preston Marshall changed the names to Redskins and moved the team to Washington D.C. in 1937.

Mr. Marshall envisioned his team as wholly white and refused to sign a player who was African American. By 1962 the Redskins were the only NFL team with no black players. Only when he was threatened did he sign Bobby Mitchell (1935-2020).

But integrating the team didn’t entirely eliminate racism. Native Americans have always found “Redskins” to be racist. George Preston Marshall and successive owners can be given a bye as most of us didn’t recognize the racism in the word Redskins. But in 1999 Dan Snyder purchased the Redskins. Soon after that he began to hear about how offensive Native Americans felt about the word Redskins. He responded by refusing to change the name.

It’s changed in the last week. FEDEX owns the rights to the Redskins stadium and they are pushing to change the name. Other sponsors have done the same.

I have to confess that I’ve had a hard time watching football because of chronic traumatic encephalopathy but I still support changing the name of the Washington Redskins.