Could you give some examples of how that worked early on? What would a state or local immigration law even look like?

So today, people often ask me that, you know, they say, I can't write today.

The federal government has main control over, not main, sole control over international borders.

There are very few state border, very few laws restricting people going from state to state and staying there.

So it's very strange to think about states doing migration.

And so let me give you two examples.

Poor people could not assume that they could just go into a country.

Could you talk a little bit about kind of who was wanted, who was unwanted, what kind of policies the different colonies used to encourage people they wanted to immigrate, but also the ones they used to discourage the people they didn't want to immigrate? You talk about one, but I got the sense that that was one among many.

Can you tell us a little bit more about this colonization movement and its defeat?

So there's a phrase I use in the book over and over, and it's the right to remain.

And I borrow that phrase from historian Samantha Seeley, who has a great book on that topic.

We don't think today about the right to remain because we assume if we have legal authorization to go into a geographical area, we also have the right to stay.

But before the nineteenth century and the Reconstruction Amendments, the right to mobility and the right to remain were two different sets of rights, both controlled at the state level.

So the right to remain is not to be assumed.

And the American Colonization Movement was a movement of people across the United States.

So if birthright citizenship had been eliminated, what would that have meant in practical terms for children, families, and the country as a whole?

Is that fair to say that any originalist interpretation of this should have been a pretty clear answer?

So originalism is the method of interpretation that is the favored method for the court supermajority.

And it purports to look at what the framers and the founding generation meant.

And since we're looking at the 14th Amendment, we should be looking at the 14th Amendment framers.

But some conservatives say, no, we're looking at the framers in 1788.

Well, they're different moments of founding and we should be looking at the 14th Amendment.

And the legislative intent was very clear.

But legally speaking, the U.S. really does treat asylum questions and citizenship questions differently, right?

And and I've sort of talked to my students about the fact that the Chinese folks who came to the United States maybe didn't come of their own volition in the same way that perhaps somebody else might have turned up on the shores.

So that's a point of contention because after the immigration federalizes and nationalizes, which means that the federal government took over the control of the entry and exit of U.S. borders and U.S. immigration law becomes applicable nationwide instead of 27 states having 27 different sets of migration laws.

Right.

It's no mistake.

Why did, you know, often people ask me, well, wasn't it inevitable that the federal government was going to take over immigration? It was a matter of time.

I said, yes, but I'm trying to answer the question, why in 1888? Why not 1820? Why not 1798? Fresh off the bat, why 1888? And it's because after the Civil War, slavery becomes disentangled from voluntary migration and the feds can finally take over.

And the states ask them to take over.

How does understanding migrants and the origins of American citizenship help us think about what's going on today?

Can you-

So that's a point of contention, uh, because after the immigration federalizes and nationalizes, which means that the federal government took over the control of the entry and exit of US borders, and US immigration law becomes applicable nationwide instead of 27 states having d- 27 different sets of migration laws.

It's no s- it's no mistake.

Why did...

You know, often people ask me, "Well, wasn't it inevitable that the federal government was gonna take over immigration? It was a matter of time." I said, "Yes, but I'm trying to answer the question, why in 1888? Why not 1820? Why not 1798, fresh off the bat? Why, why 1888?" And it's because after the Civil War, slavery becomes disentangled from voluntary migration, and the feds can finally take over, and the states asked them to take over.

So it's not...

I mean, the slave states found, while slavery was legal, the slave states found the idea of federal immigration exclusion and deportation very threatening.

You look the same.

Can you talk-

So that's a point of contention, uh, because after the immigration federalizes and nationalizes, which means that the federal government took over the control of the entry and exit of US borders, and US immigration law becomes applicable nationwide instead of 27 states having d- 27 different sets of migration laws.

It's no s- it's no mistake.

Why did...

You know, often people ask me, "Well, wasn't it inevitable that the federal government was gonna take over immigration? It was a matter of time." I said, "Yes, but I'm trying to answer the question, why in 1888? Why not 1820? Why not 1798, fresh off the bat? Why, why 1888?" And it's because after the Civil War, slavery becomes disentangled from voluntary migration and the feds can finally take over, and the states asked them to take over.

So it's not...

I mean, the slave states found, while slavery was legal, the slave states found the idea of federal immigration exclusion and deportation very threatening.

You look the same.

And and I've sort of talked to my students about the fact that the Chinese folks who came to the United States maybe didn't come of their own volition in the same way that perhaps somebody else might have turned up on the shores.

So that's a point of contention because after the immigration federalizes and nationalizes, which means that the federal government took over the control of the entry and exit of U.S. borders and U.S. immigration law becomes applicable nationwide instead of 27 states having 27 different sets of migration laws.

Right.

It's no mistake.

Why did, you know, often people ask me, well, wasn't it inevitable that the federal government was going to take over immigration? It was a matter of time.

I said, yes, but I'm trying to answer the question, why in 1888? Why not 1820? Why not 1798? Fresh off the bat, why 1888? And it's because after the Civil War, slavery becomes disentangled from voluntary migration and the feds can finally take over.

And the states ask them to take over.

How does understanding migrants and the origins of American citizenship help us think about what's going on today?

So what were some of the levers that you came across?

So one of the things I should start with is the official history of the United States', uh, immigration policy is on the government's website currently, and right now the Department of Homeland Security website says that the US government didn't really start enforcing borders until the late 19th century, and before that it was functionally open borders and most people could come.

But you go back to the colonial period, that far back, and one realizes, uh, the borders were never really open to everyone.

Uh, so colonial governments had some very specific goals.

Each of the colonies were put in charge of making their own migration recruitment, uh, policy.

All the colonies wanted warm bodies because they needed to work the land into, uh, a, a susta- a, a place that someone could live and, and grow crops on and survive.

They had to, there had to be numbers of people on the ground, uh, to fight with Native Americans whose land they were invading.

So, like, were these decisions about who got to go where, was that fully up to the colonial government? I mean, after independence, was it just up to the states? Like, how did that tension, I suppose, between different levels of decision-making work?

And I would love for you to start by talking about the role of indentured servants who were brought to the colonies and how that became all but invisible to U.S. history when we talk about what then becomes slavery.

It's a topic I didn't know much about.

And I always thought of indentured servants as a labor category.

But what I found in the colonial period is it's a migration category.

The colonies are desperate for warm bodies and people because they need to occupy the land.

They need to work the land and farm the land into productivity so crops can be grown and the land can sustain families and a population.

And they need to occupy the land because that's Native Americans who live there.

And I'd love for you to explain the effects that this had on a lot of other minorities that were not suddenly like living the dream.

And I would love for you to start by talking about the role of indentured servants who were brought to the colonies and how that became all but invisible to U.S. history when we talk about what then becomes slavery.

It's a topic I didn't know much about, and I always thought of indentured servants as a labor category.

But what I found in the colonial period is it's a migration category.

The colonies are desperate for warm bodies and people because they need to occupy the land.

They need to work the land and farm the land into productivity so crops can be grown and the land can sustain families and a population.

And they need to occupy the land because that's Native Americans who live there.

And Native Americans are defending their own land.

And I'd love for you to explain the effects that this had on a lot of other minorities that were not suddenly like living the dream.

And I would love for you to start by talking about the role of indentured servants who were brought to the colonies and how that became all but invisible to US history when we talk about what then becomes slavery.

It's a topic I didn't know much about, and I always thought of indentured servants as a labor category.

But what I found in the colonial period is it's a migration category.

The colonies are desperate for warm bodies and people because they need to occupy the land.

They need to work the land and farm the land into productivity so crops can be grown, and the land can sustain families and a population.

And they need to occupy the land because that's Native Americans who lived there, and Native Americans are defending their own land, and you can't occupy and defend a territory that other people are contesting because they were there first if you only have three people there.

So the vast majority of colonial migration law is about recruitment, getting people to come there.

This purported to lift up former enslaved people, but the results were very, very mixed for other groups that were not white, and I'd love for you to explain the effects that this had on a lot of other minorities that were not suddenly, like, living the dream.