'Completely Un-American': Progressives Slam Trump Plan to End Birthright Citizenship
"Emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump sits in the Salon Jaune room at the U.K. ambassador's residence in Paris, France on December 7, 2024.
Jessica Corbett
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Progressives in Congress and other migrant rights advocates sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for his comments on immigration during a Sunday interview, including on his hopes to end birthright citizenship.
During a 76-minute interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Trump said he "absolutely" intends to end birthright citizenship, potentially through executive order, despite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among many lies the Republican told, he also falsely claimed that the United States is the only country to offer citizenship by birth; in fact, there are dozens.
In response, outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on social media Monday: "This is completely un-American. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Trump cannot unilaterally end it, and any attempt to do so would be both unconstitutional and immoral."
Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution as a cornerstone of American ideals. It reflects our belief that America is the land of opportunity. Sadly, this is just another in the long line of Trump's assault on the U.S. Constitution."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, said in a statement: "'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' It is important to remember who we are, where many of us came from, and why many of our families traveled here to be greeted by the Mother of Exiles, the Statue of Liberty."
Ramirez argued that "the story of our nation wouldn't be complete without the sweat, tears, joy, dreams, and hopes of so many children of immigrants who are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS. It is the story of so many IL-03 communities, strengthened by the immigration of people from Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Mexico, and Guatemala, among others. It is the story of many members of Congress who can point to the citizenship of their forebears and ancestors because of immigration and birthright."
"Let's be clear: Trump is posing the question of who gets to be an American to our nation. And given that today's migrants are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin and Central America, it is clear he is questioning who are the 'right' people to benefit from birthright citizenship," she continued. "Questioning birthright citizenship is anti-American, and eliminating it through executive action is unconstitutional. Donald Trump knows that."
"But emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the Constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," she warned. "I—like many sons and daughters of immigrants and first-generation Americans—believe in and fight for a land of freedom, opportunities, and equality. To live into that promise, we must stand against white nationalism—especially when it is espoused at the highest levels of government."
Although Republicans are set to control both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives next year, amending the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures, meaning that process is unlikely to be attempted for this policy.
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) highlighted the difficulties of passing constitutional amendments while discussing Trump in a Monday appearance on CNN. The incoming chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was born in the Dominican Republic and is the first formerly undocumented immigrant elected to Congress.
As Mother Jones reporter Isabela Dias detailed Monday:
Critics of ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants argue it would not only constitute bad policy, but also a betrayal of American values and, as one scholar put it to me, a "prelude" to mass deportation.
"It's really 100 years of accepted interpretation," Hiroshi Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship at UCLA's law school, told me of birthright citizenship. Ending birthright citizenship would cut at the core of the hard-fought assurance of equal treatment under the law, he said, "basically drawing a line between two kinds of American citizens."
Trump's NBC interview also addressed his long-promised mass deportations. The president-elect—whose first administration was globally condemned for separating migrant families at the southern border and second administration is already filling up with hard-liners—suggested Sunday that he would deport children who are U.S. citizens with undocumented parents.
"I don't want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back," Trump told Welker.
Responding in a Monday statement, America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said, "There's a growing consensus that the Trump mass deportation agenda will hit American consumers and industries hard, but the scope of what Trump and his team are proposing goes well beyond the economic impact."
"Trump and allies are making clear their mass deportation agenda will include deporting U.S. citizens, including children, while aiming to gut a century and a half of legal and moral precedent on birthright citizenship," she added. "In total, their attacks go well beyond the narrow lens of immigration to the fundamental question of who gets to be an American."
"Emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump sits in the Salon Jaune room at the U.K. ambassador's residence in Paris, France on December 7, 2024.
(Photo: Aaron Chown/pool/AFP via Getty Images)
Jessica Corbett
Dec 09, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Progressives in Congress and other migrant rights advocates sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for his comments on immigration during a Sunday interview, including on his hopes to end birthright citizenship.
During a 76-minute interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Trump said he "absolutely" intends to end birthright citizenship, potentially through executive order, despite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among many lies the Republican told, he also falsely claimed that the United States is the only country to offer citizenship by birth; in fact, there are dozens.
In response, outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on social media Monday: "This is completely un-American. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Trump cannot unilaterally end it, and any attempt to do so would be both unconstitutional and immoral."
Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution as a cornerstone of American ideals. It reflects our belief that America is the land of opportunity. Sadly, this is just another in the long line of Trump's assault on the U.S. Constitution."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, said in a statement: "'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' It is important to remember who we are, where many of us came from, and why many of our families traveled here to be greeted by the Mother of Exiles, the Statue of Liberty."
Ramirez argued that "the story of our nation wouldn't be complete without the sweat, tears, joy, dreams, and hopes of so many children of immigrants who are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS. It is the story of so many IL-03 communities, strengthened by the immigration of people from Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Mexico, and Guatemala, among others. It is the story of many members of Congress who can point to the citizenship of their forebears and ancestors because of immigration and birthright."
"Let's be clear: Trump is posing the question of who gets to be an American to our nation. And given that today's migrants are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin and Central America, it is clear he is questioning who are the 'right' people to benefit from birthright citizenship," she continued. "Questioning birthright citizenship is anti-American, and eliminating it through executive action is unconstitutional. Donald Trump knows that."
"But emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the Constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," she warned. "I—like many sons and daughters of immigrants and first-generation Americans—believe in and fight for a land of freedom, opportunities, and equality. To live into that promise, we must stand against white nationalism—especially when it is espoused at the highest levels of government."
Although Republicans are set to control both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives next year, amending the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures, meaning that process is unlikely to be attempted for this policy.
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) highlighted the difficulties of passing constitutional amendments while discussing Trump in a Monday appearance on CNN. The incoming chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was born in the Dominican Republic and is the first formerly undocumented immigrant elected to Congress.
As Mother Jones reporter Isabela Dias detailed Monday:
Critics of ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants argue it would not only constitute bad policy, but also a betrayal of American values and, as one scholar put it to me, a "prelude" to mass deportation.
"It's really 100 years of accepted interpretation," Hiroshi Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship at UCLA's law school, told me of birthright citizenship. Ending birthright citizenship would cut at the core of the hard-fought assurance of equal treatment under the law, he said, "basically drawing a line between two kinds of American citizens."
Trump's NBC interview also addressed his long-promised mass deportations. The president-elect—whose first administration was globally condemned for separating migrant families at the southern border and second administration is already filling up with hard-liners—suggested Sunday that he would deport children who are U.S. citizens with undocumented parents.
"I don't want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back," Trump told Welker.
Responding in a Monday statement, America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said, "There's a growing consensus that the Trump mass deportation agenda will hit American consumers and industries hard, but the scope of what Trump and his team are proposing goes well beyond the economic impact."
"Trump and allies are making clear their mass deportation agenda will include deporting U.S. citizens, including children, while aiming to gut a century and a half of legal and moral precedent on birthright citizenship," she added. "In total, their attacks go well beyond the narrow lens of immigration to the fundamental question of who gets to be an American."
By —Rebecca Santana, Associated Press
Dec 9, 2024
WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American.
But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles.
READ MORE: Fact-checking Trump’s ‘Meet the Press’ interview
Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It’s been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country.
It’s not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen.
But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it’s possible, it’s a bad idea.
Here’s a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it.
What Trump has said about birthright citizenship
During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office.
“We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said.
Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries.
READ MORE: Trump won’t rule out revenge prosecutions, deportation of U.S. citizens when he takes office
“Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship.
Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country.
“One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute.
In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens.
The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.”
What does the law say?
In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people.
“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,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
But the 14th Amendment didn’t always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa.
“That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.”
READ MORE: What the data says about birthright citizenship
Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected.
So what could Trump do and would it be successful?
Trump wasn’t clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship.
Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he’d use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action.”
He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website. In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”
Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.”
This would almost certainly end up in litigation.
Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts.
“I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade,” Nowrasteh said. “He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens.”
Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution.
Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.
How birthright citizenship could change under Trump
Adam Gray/AP
People carry the American flag during the annual Veterans Day Parade, Nov. 11, 2024, in New York.
By Sarah Matusek Staff writer
Caitlin Babcock Staff writer
Adam Gray/AP
People carry the American flag during the annual Veterans Day Parade, Nov. 11, 2024, in New York.
By Sarah Matusek Staff writer
Caitlin Babcock Staff writer
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Dec. 09, 202
Everyone born in the United States, with limited exception, is a U.S. citizen. The Constitution says so.
That’s the legal reading, over a century old, that Donald Trump says he seeks to scrap on Day 1. The president-elect has pledged to end birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized immigrant parents, so that those children born in the country aren’t automatically American.
He confirmed the plan in an NBC interview that aired Sunday.
Why We Wrote This
Donald Trump’s campaign featured the issue of unauthorized immigrants. On Day 1, he may try to change their children’s future in the U.S. – against a century of legal precedent.
“We have to end it,” said Mr. Trump. He added that he hoped to do so through “executive action.”
His transition team is starting to draft versions of an executive order, reports The Wall Street Journal. An ensuing legal fight could end up before the Supreme Court. The Constitution outlines how it can be amended – and involves approval from both Congress and the states.
The birthright debate isn’t new. It’s part of a long-term national grappling over the promise and limits of immigration, and what some analysts see as legal questions left unsettled.
How is automatic citizenship a right?
In the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment leads with this line:
“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.”
The country’s concept of citizenship transformed through the Civil War era. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people weren’t U.S. citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 reversed that decision, establishing U.S. citizenship for people born here regardless of race or past enslavement.
The act was a stepping stone to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to formerly enslaved people when it was ratified in 1868. Three decades later, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, Wong Kim Ark was denied entry back into the U.S. after a trip to China on the grounds he wasn’t a U.S. citizen. In a 6-2 decision, the justices confirmed that he was.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling has governed the prevailing understanding of automatic citizenship. But some legal minds argue the citizenship clause remains unsettled – especially for children of unauthorized immigrants. That question wasn’t addressed in the Wong Kim Ark case, they argue.
During the NBC interview, Mr. Trump repeated the false claim that only the U.S. has birthright citizenship. Several countries do, including Canada and Mexico.
Why does President-elect Trump want to restrict automatic citizenship?
Mr. Trump casts it as part of cracking down on illegal immigration that swelled under the Biden administration. This includes removing what Mr. Trump calls an “incentive.”
He spoke of ending automatic citizenship leading up to and during his first term, but he never signed an order. During his latest campaign, he released a video vowing to tackle the task anew as part of securing the border.
On Day 1, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” he said. “At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify.”
The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Trump’s team plans to stop issuing documents like passports and Social Security cards to babies born to unauthorized migrant parents on U.S. soil.
The president-elect has also said he wants to rein in “birth tourism,” in which women come from abroad to birth their babies here. Those schemes exist, and fraudulent operations by Chinese nationals have been prosecuted by the U.S. government. Some Trump critics, however, have called his treatment of “birth tourism” xenophobic.
In 2016, the latest year available, around 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the U.S., reports Pew Research Center.
Dec. 09, 202
Everyone born in the United States, with limited exception, is a U.S. citizen. The Constitution says so.
That’s the legal reading, over a century old, that Donald Trump says he seeks to scrap on Day 1. The president-elect has pledged to end birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized immigrant parents, so that those children born in the country aren’t automatically American.
He confirmed the plan in an NBC interview that aired Sunday.
Why We Wrote This
Donald Trump’s campaign featured the issue of unauthorized immigrants. On Day 1, he may try to change their children’s future in the U.S. – against a century of legal precedent.
“We have to end it,” said Mr. Trump. He added that he hoped to do so through “executive action.”
His transition team is starting to draft versions of an executive order, reports The Wall Street Journal. An ensuing legal fight could end up before the Supreme Court. The Constitution outlines how it can be amended – and involves approval from both Congress and the states.
The birthright debate isn’t new. It’s part of a long-term national grappling over the promise and limits of immigration, and what some analysts see as legal questions left unsettled.
How is automatic citizenship a right?
In the U.S. Constitution, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment leads with this line:
“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.”
The country’s concept of citizenship transformed through the Civil War era. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people weren’t U.S. citizens. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 reversed that decision, establishing U.S. citizenship for people born here regardless of race or past enslavement.
The act was a stepping stone to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to formerly enslaved people when it was ratified in 1868. Three decades later, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, Wong Kim Ark was denied entry back into the U.S. after a trip to China on the grounds he wasn’t a U.S. citizen. In a 6-2 decision, the justices confirmed that he was.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling has governed the prevailing understanding of automatic citizenship. But some legal minds argue the citizenship clause remains unsettled – especially for children of unauthorized immigrants. That question wasn’t addressed in the Wong Kim Ark case, they argue.
During the NBC interview, Mr. Trump repeated the false claim that only the U.S. has birthright citizenship. Several countries do, including Canada and Mexico.
Why does President-elect Trump want to restrict automatic citizenship?
Mr. Trump casts it as part of cracking down on illegal immigration that swelled under the Biden administration. This includes removing what Mr. Trump calls an “incentive.”
He spoke of ending automatic citizenship leading up to and during his first term, but he never signed an order. During his latest campaign, he released a video vowing to tackle the task anew as part of securing the border.
On Day 1, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” he said. “At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify.”
The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Trump’s team plans to stop issuing documents like passports and Social Security cards to babies born to unauthorized migrant parents on U.S. soil.
The president-elect has also said he wants to rein in “birth tourism,” in which women come from abroad to birth their babies here. Those schemes exist, and fraudulent operations by Chinese nationals have been prosecuted by the U.S. government. Some Trump critics, however, have called his treatment of “birth tourism” xenophobic.
In 2016, the latest year available, around 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the U.S., reports Pew Research Center.
Can Mr. Trump actually change birthright citizenship?
It’s unclear. Any executive order would likely draw a legal fight, and could end up in the nation’s top court. One point of debate, which some legal experts say could prove key, is how to interpret who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. – as the law says.
Changing the citizenship clause in the Constitution, however, would require an amendment. That would involve an approval by two-thirds vote from the U.S. House and Senate, and ultimately a ratification by at least 38 states. The last amendment was added in 1992.
Birthright citizenship is among the “hallmark pieces of the American experiment,” says Jennie Murray, president of the National Immigration Forum. Restricting this right “begins to unwind the definition of what it means to be American,” she says, which could be seen as a step too far for some Trump supporters.
Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur underscores that entering the U.S. without authorization is a crime. The citizenship benefit “creates a pull factor,” he says. “And generally, we try to eliminate those incentives from our law.”
Automatic citizenship is a “question that needs to be resolved in the Constitution,” says Mr. Arthur, law and policy fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He notes there’s already an exception to whom the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause applies: children of foreign diplomats.
Hiroshi Motomura, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, thinks it’s unlikely the Supreme Court would overturn Wong Kim Ark. That’s because while possible, he says, that would reverse more than a century of precedent.
It’s unclear. Any executive order would likely draw a legal fight, and could end up in the nation’s top court. One point of debate, which some legal experts say could prove key, is how to interpret who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. – as the law says.
Changing the citizenship clause in the Constitution, however, would require an amendment. That would involve an approval by two-thirds vote from the U.S. House and Senate, and ultimately a ratification by at least 38 states. The last amendment was added in 1992.
Birthright citizenship is among the “hallmark pieces of the American experiment,” says Jennie Murray, president of the National Immigration Forum. Restricting this right “begins to unwind the definition of what it means to be American,” she says, which could be seen as a step too far for some Trump supporters.
Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur underscores that entering the U.S. without authorization is a crime. The citizenship benefit “creates a pull factor,” he says. “And generally, we try to eliminate those incentives from our law.”
Automatic citizenship is a “question that needs to be resolved in the Constitution,” says Mr. Arthur, law and policy fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies. He notes there’s already an exception to whom the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause applies: children of foreign diplomats.
Hiroshi Motomura, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, thinks it’s unlikely the Supreme Court would overturn Wong Kim Ark. That’s because while possible, he says, that would reverse more than a century of precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment