"The Trump administration's entire argument hinges on a tendentious two-step, one that the majority of justices do not seem to be buying. It's important to unpack the absurdity of the semantic case the administration is making to unlock why this effort to rewire all of American society is almost certain to fail."
"U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer asserted that birthright citizenship extends only to children whose parents owe 'direct and immediate allegiance' to the United States, a phrase that is not found in the relevant passage of the 14th Amendment."
"Sauer therefore engaged in his first bit of linguistic legerdemain, telling the court, 'Allegiance' is what jurisdiction means."
The Trump administration's argument regarding birthright citizenship relies on a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment's language, specifically the term 'jurisdiction' as 'allegiance.' This interpretation excludes children of temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer's assertion that birthright citizenship applies only to children with 'direct and immediate allegiance' is not supported by the text of the 14th Amendment. The majority of justices appear skeptical of this argument, indicating a likely failure of the administration's efforts to redefine citizenship.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]