Thirty years ago, Congress considered a bill that was very similar to Trump’s recent citizenship. It wanted to refuse automatic citizenship to parents who were born in the United States, not legitimate residents. These bills were sometimes introduced and did not go anywhere.
The 1995 Citizenship Reform Act was mainly noteworthy. This is because one of the witnesses who testified about the lawyer, Walter Dellinger, caused an amazing statement about the deeper meaning of the birth rights citizenship. The constitutional scholar, who was in charge of the legal torture office of the Ministry of Justice, advised the administration, mentioned a question that was not worth discussing.
“My office is full of difficult problems with the Constitution and is full of close problems.” “The legitimacy of this bill is not one of them. This law is undoubtedly unconstitutional. ”
The statement was expected on Thursday from Judge John C. Ku Neur of the Seattle District Court on Thursday. Judge Coughenour said at the hearing before a temporary arrest order to stop President Trump’s order: “I was on the bench for more than 40 years. The questions presented are not as clear as this problem. This is an obvious unconstitutional order. ”
DELLINGER said that in 1995, the constitutional amendment would be needed to withdraw Birthhright Citizenship. As a result, his bigger points have arisen, which means that changing the rules will be a deadly betrayal of forged American values in the inter -Korean war.
“Adopting such an amendment will not be technically illegal, but it will contradict our constitutional history and constitutional tradition.”
The idea that children born in the United States will automatically become a citizen of the United States have a deep root in customs. But it was not adopted in the constitutional text until 1868 in the first sentence of the 14th amendment. They live. ”
The sentence overturned Ded Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed the slave system and stimulates civil war.
DELLINGER, who died in 2022 after a long career at the government and legal academy, said the history has HEFT.
“In the most monumental decision, the Supreme Court created a terrible exception to the general legal rules.” I decided that I could not be a citizen of the United States. “
“With our experience in Ded Scott, we have learned that our country should never be trusted by judges and politicians to deprive the rights of citizenship in the class born in the soil.”
The decision of Ded Scott led to the injury of Abraham Lincoln, the most bitter critic of the Republican Party and the most bitter critic of the rule.
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, California, and former officials of the George W. Bush administration, John Yoo, after Trump began talking about his opposition to his birth rights for the first time. I wrote it. .
“Conservatives must reject Trump’s Nativist siren, and he must reaffirm the law and policy of the 14th amendment, one of the Republican’s biggest achievements,” he wrote.
President Trump and his allies limit their birth rights to the US “Jurisdiction Target”, which focuses on the 14th amendment.
The phrase was later written by James C. HO, a lawyer who later became a federal judge, in a prudent and thorough article of the legal journal Green Bag.
“It excludes people who do not need to obey the US law for any reason,” he wrote. “The most particularly foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers (foreign sovereignants) are not subject to American law despite their existence within the US territory.”
In addition to these narrow exceptions, Birthright Citizenship wrote, “It is not protected by children of those who are not documented than the descendants of Mayflower passengers.”
Judge Ho, who was sitting in the fifth round of appeals and mentioned as a candidate for the Supreme Court, seemed to withdraw from the extensive view of the November interview.
He told Josh Blackman, a conservative law professor (and the supporters of Birthhright Citizenship), “Citizenship of birth rights does not apply in the case of war or invasion.” “A person who knows has never argued that children of alien invasion are eligible to have the rights of birth rights. And I can’t imagine what the legal claim is. ”
Whether Judge HO’s current position, the conclusion of the 2016 article can be found as a premise.
“Please keep watching,” he wrote. “Ded Scott II can soon come to a federal court near you.”
