The article discusses the controversy surrounding birthright citizenship and the Trump administration's attempts to revoke it through an executive order. It highlights the arguments presented by law professors Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman that draw on a historical allegiance-for-protection theory, while noting that this perspective contradicts the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. The piece references Judge Jame Ho's assertion that only a constitutional amendment could change birthright citizenship. Additionally, it critiques the legal logic behind the allegiance-for-protection argument, emphasizing its potential to undermine citizenship rights for freed slaves.
The biggest flaw in Barnett and Wurman's 'allegiance-for-protection' theory is that it undermines the core purpose of the Citizenship Clause, which was to provide citizenship to freed slaves.
Judge Jame Ho asserts that only a constitutional amendment can undo birthright citizenship, contradicting the views presented by the Trump administration.
The theory that citizenship can be revoked through executive order poses significant legal challenges, evidenced by ongoing litigation resulting from Trump's birthright citizenship EO.
The reliance on historical precedents like the 1862 opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates raises red flags about the validity of limiting birthright citizenship.
Collection
[
|
...
]