BUMP
BTW, the author is conveniently ignoring US v. Wong Kim Ark.
We could have ‘embassy rooms’ in hospitals where Mexican and Chinese women can have children that will count as citizens of their own countries.
bump
Good post. Left wing media such as Fox News and CNN already spreading disinformation regarding this.
Chief Justice Marshall wrote the following in The Exchange v. McFadden. Many citizenship cases have cited it or cases that rely on it, including Wong Kim Ark, Elk v. Wilkins, and Minor v. Happersett.
When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.
When a slim majority on the Supreme Court misconstrues clear language in a bill, as they did in the recent Obamacare ruling where the phrase “established by the State” was clear, but misconstrued by the majority, the split usually goes in favor of the liberals on the court.
By that I mean, it’s the conservatives on the court who adhere to the text as originally intended.
Frankly, I doubt that if this were adjudicated by the current court, we’d get a 5-4 split. It could be much closer to 9-0 in favor of maintaining the current interpretation, but it would be interesting to see how it came down, nonetheless.
I think, in the end, if we’re to deny citizenship to anchor babies, it will take another constitutional amendment. That’s certainly true if the court would rule 9-0 in favor of anchor baby citizenship today, as I suspect they would. They are the determining body in the end after all.
8/19 Wednesday, first hour. Airing now.