[wonderwonder]

"For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has established the principle that anyone born in the country is a US citizen, with exceptions for children born to diplomats and foreign military forces."

I was actually unaware of this. That does seem to be a wedge to maybe support the issue. I'm not arguing one way or another for or against, just an interesting opening I had not seen before.

[commandlinefan]

It's tricky - the 14th amendment was passed following reconstruction as a way of ensuring that freed slaves couldn't be denied citizenship. Much later, the Wong Kim Ark case argued that it should cover the children of immigrants, and the supreme court agreed. Quite a while after that, the Wong Kim Ark decision was interpreted to include children of non-citizens as well, and _that's_ what's never been tested in court until now.

[josefritzishere]

It should not be tricky. The role of the supreme court is to enforce and interpret the constitution and federal law. What the constitution says in this case is unambiguous. It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.

[Ancapistani]

> the Wong Kim Ark decision was interpreted to include children of non-citizens as well

Non-citizens, yes, but foreign subjects who were compliant with US law at the time.

I believe the scope of this decision will be limited to children born on US soil to non-citizens who entered the country illegally.

[wonderwonder]

Haven't heard of this either, obviously not a topic I am up to date on. I'll look into it, appreciate the pointer.