I cannot talk about birthers or their movement. As far as anchor babies, those I can talk about. Note in the Eastman article where he talks about “Fuller”-—Fuller wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. One can not rationally read Wong without coming to the conclusion that the settle law is:
1. jus soli applies 2. those born here, and not subject to the exceptions, are natural born citizens as opposed to “naturalized” citizens. Period. Real simple.
The fact that Eastman likes to cite the dissent in Wong, is obvious. If he relies on the majority opinion, then the law is certain and it will take 1. a constitutional amendment to overturn it. 2. A decision by SCOTUS to overturn it.
Eastman does like either option.
1.A “conservative” court is going to affirm Wong, because it will rely on the intent of the framers which is clear, despite the efforts of certain unnamed persons to obfuscate the issue.
2.A “liberal” court isn’t going to deprive anchor babies of their citizenship. So, here, even if you have a “liberal, activist” court, they are going to affirm Wong based on the intent of the framers.
3. A constitutional amendment will be difficult to get, and take years. Any amendment which attempts to over turn the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and a SCOTUS decision, while attacking the core of the Democratic party is going to have an uphill battle.
What Eastman needs is an “activist conservative” Court, and IMHO, they do not make such things.
Plus, to overturn the law, and pass an Amendment, you first have to admit that Wong is the law and it says what it says. Which don’t seem to be happening at the moment. Do you agree “birthright” citizen means that if one is born here, then one is a citizen, and a natural born citizen?
As far as the immigration problem, there is a real easy answer. Build the durn fence and enforce the law. Its what should have been done long ago.
parsy, who says “Read Wong all the way thru a couple of times.”
parsy
There's your answer then. I would happen to agree there.
Oh, and b.t.w., you know full well that the Wong court found him (born in country to alien parents), to be a "citizen."
Of the 14th amendment.
John Bingham,the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Of course the real intent was to make former slaves citizens. Period. All else is "side effect".
Obama's father owned allegiance to the Queen of England... the current one at that.