So, folks on here have probably caught a whole bunch of lawyers and law professors (correctly) lashing out at a law professor (Ilan Wurman) for suggesting there's some meaningful "literature" supporting Trump's attack on birthright citizenship that the courts didn't "engage with"
It's worth taking
It's worth taking
Comments
I think SCOTUS will PROBABLY rule in accordance with the obvious plain reading of the law, but we'll see...
“I believe we’re all equal”
I believe anyone brown isn’t human
“Let’s chat and try to find some common ground, friend!”
Here's Michael D. Ramsey's piece on originalism and birthright citizenship (correctly pointing out that the original authors of the 14A would not have been thinking of "illegal immigration")
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3681119
Back in the day, there were two main schools of thought on citizenship: jus sanguinis (blood-derived), meaning follows your parents and jus solis (soil-derived), meaning it follows wherever you're born
Which of the two do you think England followed?
Uh oh. I think I know how this ends.
It was "we want slavery to be generational, and we can't have those people
Except with citizenship.