Two legal scholars writing for the liberal New York Times warned Democrats that President Donald Trump’s executive order clarifying who qualifies for birthright citizenship is not as legally flawed as critics claim.
Randy E. Barnett and Ilan Wurman—the respective professors of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law and the University of Minnesota—wrote Saturday that Trump’s mandate does not necessarily contradict the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Trump’s order seeks to award citizenship to the children of Americans and lawful immigrants.
While some federal judges and leftist activists argue the amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to nearly all those born on U.S. soil—including so-called anchor babies—Barnett and Wurman opined differently. They noted that Trump’s legal stance has not yet been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court has held, in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that children born here to permanent residents are citizens. But it has never squarely held that children born to those illegally present are citizens,” the two scholars wrote.
Although Barnett and Wurman approached the issue from a legal and historical perspective, they also clarified that the 14th Amendment was originally intended to extend birthright citizenship to African Americans following the Civil War. […]
— Read More: headlineusa.com
