No. of Recommendations: 2
There's no "significant Constitutional ambiguity."
Oh?
Do the words "illegal", "undocumented" or "immigrant" appear in there?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In 1938 or whenever this was first argued there was not the series of issues we have now.
The Court generally weighs in only when there is a live dispute over what the law is - either a dispute between parties in a case that requires resolution or a split between how the different circuits are applying the law. Right now there's a live dispute, but it's in the process of being ruled upon. If the circuit courts interpret the law and the SCOTUS thinks they're getting it right, there's no need for them to weigh in. As long as the law is always being applied in the way the Court thinks is correct, they generally won't act.
Sure. The question is, has anything changed since the last time the Supremes looked at this. I'd say it has.
Was birth tourism a thing back then?
