π¨π¨ @evanbernick.bsky.social, @paulgowder.bsky.social, and I have published a draft of our article, ππͺπ³π΅π©π³πͺπ¨π©π΅ ππͺπ΅πͺπ»π¦π―π΄π©πͺπ± π’π―π₯ π΅π©π¦ ππΆπ―π―πͺπ―π¨ ππ€π©π°π°π π°π§ ππ―π°π³πͺπ¨πͺπ―π’π ππ¦π’π―πͺπ―π¨π΄, forthcoming in the online companion of Cα΄ΚΙ΄α΄ΚΚ Lα΄α΄‘ Rα΄α΄ Ιͺα΄α΄‘, on SSRN. Comments welcomed, as always! https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5162760
Comments
If you canβt trace your parentage back a few generations to white European immigrants (excluding Italian or Irish) be ready to β¦
π΅ πΊπΈ π π²π½
See below for additional support. I plan to expand this post on the 1850s-60s restrictions on Chinese immigration as relevant background in favor of broad birthright citizenship.
I'd love suggestions for sources and feedback, too:
https://shugerblogcom.wordpress.com/2025/02/21/birthright-citizenship-4-the-concept-of-unlawful-immigrants-existed-in-the-1850s-60s-and-americans-ratified-birthright-citizenship-without-worrying-about-it/
I thought we just got to make stuff up for op-eds these days.
1. p.16: βNevertheless, they persisted.β π
2. Re: John Eastman: I would only have added Judge David Carterβs damning insight that Eastmanβs motive was βa coup in search of a legal theory.β
"the legal profession is again confronted with the specter of some of its prominent members penning meritless, even frivolous, justifications of a Presidentβs desire to violate the basic human rights of a vulnerable population"
They didn't necessarily enter illegally. Lots just overstayed their visas.
Not sure where that fits into their silly argument.
But we ALSO need more pet pictures from y'all.
(Also, guess who's gonna be on campus for an originalism debate tomorrow that FedSoc and ACS are hosting)
As the kids would say β DRAG THEM!! π€
While as doing this sort of scholarship entirely in editorial pages is irresponsible, confining the rebuttal to SSRN and a law review article cedes most of the public debate space.
And you get to point out that you did the scholarly thing first, as one should
Iβve sometimes published original ideas in Slate, and only Slate, bc the marginal public return on something more is likely ~0.
Someone once said every piece, in declining order of importance, should be law review β> policy brief β> op-ed.
Reverse the arrows, and I agree.
But if, like you, youβre a fast-moving policy space, think op-eds are #1.
and Wurmanβs approach, which attempts to..." to "the essay DEMONSTRATES that ..."?
I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, so maybe I misunderstand, but:
If a child from an undocumented family is born in this country, and we follow the arguments of Barnett and Wurman, how could we deport them anywhere? By their logic, how could they be citizens of anywhere?
But the Dunning school for the quick glance I gave the paper is so much worse.
But I'm not really a legal scholar so perhaps I'm missing something.