Harvard Law Today reports:

The Constitution is clear: Those born on American soil, even to undocumented parents, are citizens of the United States, says Gerald Neuman ’80, the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School.

Almost immediately after Donald Trump was sworn in on January 20, the second-term president issued a series of executive orders, including one touching on birthright citizenship — a constitutional provision that guarantees that those born within the boundaries of the United States automatically attain American citizenship. But according to the president’s directive, the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections should not extend to the children of unauthorized immigrants or those in the country on a temporary visa.

Neuman, an expert in immigration and nationality law, says that both history and Supreme Court precedent confirm an intent to grant citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. — regardless of their parents’ legal status. Moreover, he adds, “The president of the United States has no authority to change citizenship rules at all.”

In an interview with Harvard Law Today on the same day that a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, Neuman explained what birthright citizenship is, how it prevents a “hereditary caste of people who are not citizens,” and why he believes the executive order is “doubly unlawful.” [Continue reading…]

Joyce Vance writes:

The meaning of the language in the 14th Amendment is plain. It says, “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.” Trump’s DOJ argued that somehow, the children it wants to strip of citizenship aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The Judge asked DOJ’s lawyer whether those kids would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they committed a crime. He responded that they were subject to the laws of this country, but not subject to the jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment.

That argument didn’t fly with the Judge, who interrupted to say, “Frankly I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind. Go ahead.” By the end of the hearing, there was little doubt about where the proceedings were headed. “I’d like to go back to your opinion about the constitutionality of this order,” Judge Coughenour said. “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” [Continue reading…]