After this morning’s Political stunt from our dear leader, NYT has analyzed the view of various legal scholars and how/if the EO would hold muster
this #anchorbaby reports
first, here is a link regarding the History of birthright battle and recommendation of this Book which i have 75% read after reading that article back then, as many know the main reason for the clause was to right the horrible precedent of Dredd Scott
The idea of “jus soli,” the right of the soil, goes back to English common law. Where does the American idea of birthright citizenship enter our political tradition?
The ACLU
The president cannot erase the Constitution with an executive order, and the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This is a transparent and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow division and fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms.”
Peter J. Spiro, law professor Temple University
“The conventional understanding is absolutely clear that children born in the United States are citizens of the United States, with the insignificant exception of the children of diplomats,” he said.
During congressional debates around the amendment.
“Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked on the Senate floor.
Senator John Conness of California said the answer was yes.
“The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens,” Mr. Conness said.
This has been tested by the Supreme Court in US v Wong where Chinese descendants born in the US were citizens regardless of the law the prohibited giving that right to their parents.
James C. Ho, recently appointed by Trump to the Federal bench , wrote in 2006
“This sweeping language reaches all aliens regardless of immigration status,”
Regarding , if it would be retroactive (goodbye Trump) , Again SCOTUS has talked about this
“The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship,” the court said in Afroyim v. Rusk, a 1967 decision that struck down a federal law canceling the citizenship of people who voted in foreign elections.
“We hold that the 14th Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race,” the court said. “Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.”
Vote vote vote