Wow, I've never seen any law review articles taken apart quite as effectively and completely as Ramsey does. That's some scorched earth, go home and think about a new line of work level rebuttal.
I mean the example of children born in the south during the civil war is brilliant and neither view has a good answer. But most damning is the point that, it's hard to understand how someone who shows up and is allowed to live as a lawful resident -- explicitly reserving their home country allegiance and perhaps even intending to return -- somehow qualifies as having allegiance to or subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US but yet someone who enters the US illegally with the intention to abandon their home country and live in the US permanently does not.
Usually the law isn't this cut and dried but here you basically have a proof you can't make the other readings work. You can't both insist that the children of criminals, even those in active rebellion against the government, qualify for citizenship as do lawful aliens but not unlawful ones.
If you are a textualist, does not "all" mean "all". Of, immigration lawyers for the connected can turn a dubious EB-1 into fast tracking a birthright if needed.
Looks like the Youngstown piece is approved now, thanks SSRN!
Wow, I've never seen any law review articles taken apart quite as effectively and completely as Ramsey does. That's some scorched earth, go home and think about a new line of work level rebuttal.
I mean the example of children born in the south during the civil war is brilliant and neither view has a good answer. But most damning is the point that, it's hard to understand how someone who shows up and is allowed to live as a lawful resident -- explicitly reserving their home country allegiance and perhaps even intending to return -- somehow qualifies as having allegiance to or subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US but yet someone who enters the US illegally with the intention to abandon their home country and live in the US permanently does not.
Usually the law isn't this cut and dried but here you basically have a proof you can't make the other readings work. You can't both insist that the children of criminals, even those in active rebellion against the government, qualify for citizenship as do lawful aliens but not unlawful ones.
If you are a textualist, does not "all" mean "all". Of, immigration lawyers for the connected can turn a dubious EB-1 into fast tracking a birthright if needed.