Birthright citizenship: hard questions - and the best answers - for Trump's challengers

Birthright Citizenship: Hard Questions – and the Best Answers – for Trump's Challengers

Q1: If you lose on the 14th Amendment, shouldn't you also lose on the 1952 INA, which uses the same words?

A: Not necessarily. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not use identical language to the 14th Amendment in every respect. For example, it omits any mention of state residence, a point that the Solicitor General has raised but is ultimately irrelevant given broader context. In 1952, everyone interpreted the 14th Amendment through the lens of established judicial caselaw and executive practice, which included a broad reading of Wong Kim Ark. The INA’s refusal to use terms like “mother” or “father” in its birthright citizenship clause, while using these terms elsewhere, supports an interpretation that grants birthright citizenship regardless of parents' immigration status. This broader context makes it clear that the 1952 statute was intended to affirm existing practice rather than restrict it.

Q2: If you win on the 1952 INA, why shouldn't the court start and

Read the full article at SCOTUSblog

---

Want to create content about this topic? Use Nemati AI tools to generate articles, social posts, and more.