Compendium of Evan Bernick Guest-blogging Posts on Birthright Citizenship

Links to all of his posts compiled.

Many thanks to Prof. Evan Bernick for his insightful guest-blogging posts on birthright citizenship over the past week. For convenience, here are links to all of his posts, gathered in one place:

1. "Evan Bernick, Guest-Blogging About Birthright Citizenship" (post introducing Evan and compiling links to some of his work; written by Ilya Somin)

2. "88 Problems for Kurt Lash"

3. "Lash's Last Stand"

4. "The Domicile Dead-End"

5. "The Dred Scott Challenge or: Why Constitutional Law is Not a Game"

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

|/dev/null

Send them all home.

[AmosArch]

The VCers are doggedly cataloging every single way and possible avenue in which Trump could be considered to be pushing against the law I guess they had to take a nap while Newsom tries to negotiate separately with foreign powers.

[Riva]

If the opponents of the EO actually had a powerful argument, they wouldn't need to keep bombarding this site with so many tendentious rants. They really have nothing and want to scream their way to victory, like a DC Hamas supporter.

[windycityattorney]

Do you think various district courts who have all found the Trump admin wrong on birthright citizenship are engaging in 'tendentious rants?'

Why do you think the Trump admin keeps losing if their opponents don't have any powerful arguments? Are the DOJ incapable of making good arguments? Or does law, precedent, practice, textualism and public meaning originalism all cut against the legal interpretation the administration is trying to advance via the executive order???

[Thought about __ all my life]

Your reporting on Boasberg and Justice Roberts is very poor

Can it be that Roberts means what he says when he sits still and unmovingly on the Birthright Citizenship issue. I can not think how.

WHy do we even have the concept of 'citizenship' if Reason and Roberts have not til now said a word about milliions coming in on the same par: political asylum seekers, poor people looking for a better life, MS-13 murderers, Tren de Aragua criminal gangs. I can make no sense of the REASON positon except that they are at root anti-Trump no matter what. That seems to explaing the deafening unLibertarian ignoring of Millei and VIllareuel when they attack abortion and homosexuality

[Roger S]

It makes sense if they are anti-American Marxists.

[EllaWilson]

I did not vote for “judge“ blowsburg.

[SRG2]

So what. You didn't vote for the US Constitution either.

[Roger S]

These posts had a lot of whining about irrelevancies, like Dred Scott, but they never address the main issue. Does the 14A require birth tourism and anchor babies? The historical analysis suggests not.

[Randal]

Since there's no such thing as birth tourism or anchor babies, your question is moot.

[Purple Martin]

Are only those things required by the Constitution, possible? Are all things not required, forbidden?

I'd be interested in your lists of both.

[Roger S]

No, people are allowed to do things that are not required. For example, I am allowed to write this message, but I am not required to.

[not guilty]

How does an infant born here to alien parents "anchor" anyone or anything? The parents remain deportable regardless of the child's status as an American citizen. See Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957).

[Roger S]

Yes, the parents could be deported, but they usually are not. And the child is allowed to claim USA citizenship, even if he claims citizenship somewhere else.

[Sarcastr0]

Usually!

[David Nieporent]

The child is not "allowed to claim US citizenship." He simply is a citizen. No claiming is necessary or permissible.

[SRG2]

There are, it seems, two positions.

1. The Constitution establishes birthright citizenship.

2. Trump disagrees and so therefore do I.

Anyone purporting to make any argument against #1 is actually making argument #2