Just A Quick Update: Additional Support, For Blocking Tangerine 2.0's Insane Attempt At "Ending" Birthright Citizenship, By Black Sharpie...

I'll just quickly leave the consolidated response (filed overnight, on the West Coast) here as I am running to a client meeting (in the steel and glass canyons), now -- it is excellent, from the Western District of Washington State.

His loony papers are temporarily enjoined, already -- this is about making that state of affairs. . . permanent. Here's a bit:

. . .[The] Plaintiff States’ constitutions and laws rely on the settled meaning of “United States citizen.” This includes laws requiring citizenship to vote in state elections, serve on state juries, hold local offices, and serve as a police or corrections officers. See, e.g., Wash. Const. art. VI, § 1 (right to vote in state elections); Ariz. Const. art. VII, § 2 (same); Or. Const. art. II, § 2 (same); Ill. Const. art III, § 1 (same); Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.070 (juror qualifications); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-201(1) (same); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 10.030(2) (same); 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 305/2(a) (same); Ariz. Const. art. V, § 2 (eligibility to hold certain state offices); Ill. Const. art. V, § 3 (same); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 181A.490, .520 .530 (qualifications for police, corrections, and probation officers). . . .

Defendants’ core contention is that children born to undocumented and many legal immigrants are not actually “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus not entitled to birthright citizenship, under a theory never before adopted by any court. They are wrong as a matter of constitutional text and history, and their arguments are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark.

As the Supreme Court explained in Wong Kim Ark, “[t]he real object” of including the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases . . . recognized [as] exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” 169 U.S. at 682. Those two classes are “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state[.]” Id. The Court explained at length how in each of these cases, the United States’ exercise of sovereign power was limited either in fact, as a matter of common law and practice, or in the case of Native American tribes, as a result of their tribal sovereignty. Id. at 683 (discussing United States v. Rice, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 246 (1819). . . .

Now you know. Onward.

नमस्ते