Weird: ACLU Lawyer To Essentially Argue Trump Is Right On Birthright Citizenship

And, because the Washington Post no longer does actual Journalism, they fail to see where the mistakes are being made in their Narrative

Daughter of immigrants brings history to bear in fight for birthright citizenship

American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Cecillia Wang has filed lawsuits challenging racial profiling, illegal arrests and mandatory detention for undocumented immigrants. But when she appears before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, she will be arguing against the Trump administration over a question that is fundamental not only to the nation but also to her own family.

Who deserves to be an American?

Wang, 55, was born in Oregon, three years after her parents emigrated legally from Taiwan as graduate students, making her a U.S. citizen by birth even though they were not naturalized at the time. She credits changes in federal immigration law in the 1960s that eliminated national origin quotas on Chinese immigrants for providing her family a path to succeed.

That path has animated her work over two decades at the ACLU, where she oversees a legal staff of more than 200, and this week it will help inform her arguments against President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors — including international students, like her parents. Opponents of the president’s order say it could deny citizenship to an estimated 250,000 newborns per year.

Getting beyond that she’s fighting for people who are not US citizens instead of protecting the rights of actual US citizens, dragging her story into the mix highlights exactly the point of the 14th. Let’s see the relative part of Section 1, the first sentence

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.

Her parents were here legally looking for citizenship: that made them subject to the jurisdiction thereof, hence, she would be a citizen. Those who wrote the 14th specifically said that foreign nationals were not covered.

In the government’s Supreme Court brief, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Congress in 1866 did not intend for the amendment to cover the children of immigrants who are not lawfully, and permanently, present in the country. Rather, he wrote, it was strictly aimed to protect freed enslaved persons and their descendants.

And that was the point. Why else pass this right after the Civil War?

However, like I’ve noted, does Trump have the authority to enforce and EO on this? I can seriously see the Supreme Court saying “no, the President doesn’t have that authority, however, he doesn’t need that authority. Without any legislation from Congress, the intent of the 14th and the clear language is that the children born to foreign nationals on American property are not US citizens, regardless of whether they are foreign diplomatic/government personnel or someone here on a visitor, student, or tech visa. Or illegal aliens.”

Time will tell. Democrats want the children of illegals and fake asylum seekers to be citizens so they can vote (Democrat) in the future. And since the kids would be citizens we should just give the parents citizenship and voting rights, right? That’s their thought.