Me notalawyer’s take.
‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof' says nothing about amity or enmity of the parents.
It is the newborn child at the center of the question. The child, who cries upon taking her first breath, is not voicing opinion about any concepts of citizenship or allegiance.
‘Subject to the jurisdiction thereof' says nothing about amity or enmity of the parents.
It is the newborn child at the center of the question. The child, who cries upon taking her first breath, is not voicing opinion about any concepts of citizenship or allegiance.
Reposted from
Peter
i wrote about the NYT's latest op-ed on birthright citizenship: why it's stupid, and why its implications are bigger than one clause
Comments