No. of Recommendations: 6
This crossed my feed yesterday. The original article is in
Slate, but on the PC it's pay. On my phone, it's free. So, I'll briefly summarize the article. You can probably pull it up on your phone, if you want.
Birth-right citizenship is full of precedent. As far back as 1898,
Wong Kim Ark, the courts have affirmed it. Apparently, the govt tried to strip citizenship of 120K people between 1946-67 (mostly native-born). The courts put a stop to it in 1967 with
Afroyim v Rusk. It was a unanimous decision.
They included some history during those years, with two different camps regarding denaturalization. Several cases like
Perez v Brownell along the way. But there was unanimity that the 14th Amendment says if you were born here, you're a citizen. Regardless of the status of your parents.
I'll include the link in case someone can access it (or if you read on your phone):
slate.com - Supreme court analysis precedents birthright citizenship caseSCOTUS would be going against more than a century of unanimous agreement that the 14th says you are a citizen if you were born here.
