"The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is "legal knowledge is power," and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge is power."
"In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant."
"Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words "subject to the jurisdiction" had narrow historical meaning."
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara regarding birthright citizenship, a constitutional right established by the 14th Amendment. Constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law discusses how originalist interpretations often distort historical understanding of immigration in colonial and pre-Civil War America. The framers of the Reconstruction Amendments, including the birthright citizenship clause, expressed their intentions clearly and precisely. The landmark Wong Kim Ark case affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment had a narrow historical meaning that originalists frequently misinterpret to challenge established constitutional protections.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]