Cecilia Wong

We can't take the current administration's policy considerations into account to try to re-engineer

and radically reinterpret the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

And just to circle back to Justice Kagan's point, it's striking that in none of the debates—

Do we have parents discussed?

We have the child's citizenship and the focus of the clause is on the child, not on the parents.

And you don't see domicile mentioned in the debates.

The absence is striking.

More and more definite.

The price is eminently reasonable.

Okay.

Let's just say that I'm a little pissed off.

Yeah, yeah, no, I get it, yeah.

On that, what do we do with the fact that after Wong Ken Mark, at least some authorities took the view that the non-domiciliary question wasn't decided?

remained open and even continued to press the view that domicile is required.

Swaths of American laws would be rendered senseless.

Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship.

And if you credit the government's theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans, past, present, and future, could be called into question.

Justices on the Supreme Court had tough questions for both sides in oral arguments over President Trump's push to ban automatic citizenship for children born on U.S.

soil.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, ACLU attorney Cecilia Wong condemned the executive order.