Jim Campbell

But on the other side, the administration argues that it's not enough to just be born on US soil, that someone born here must also owe full allegiance to the United States.

And because that's not true of people who are here either illegally or temporarily, then birthright citizenship should not apply under those circumstances.

Interestingly, and this isn't often the case, but both sides are citing the same precedent.

There's an 1898 decision called United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

And that case involves a question of whether a child born to Chinese immigrants was entitled to birthright citizenship.

And the court there said that they were.

Now, the challengers read that case very broadly and they say, well, because that case involved Chinese immigrants that were residing in the U.S., that that stands for the principle that all children born in the United States were

are entitled to citizenship.

But the presidential administration reads that case very differently.

It points out that those immigrants in that case were permanently residing in the U.S.

And so the principles established there don't apply to people who are either here illegally or here temporarily.

So the parties are really just arguing over the same case and they have a different reading of it.

Yeah, so the president raises a lot of concerns that he has with birthright citizenship.

He says that allowing it would encourage illegal immigration because people coming to the U.S.

would know that all future born children will automatically be U.S.

citizens.

The administration also concerns about what's known as birth

tourism, which is when pregnant women come to the US immediately before giving birth so that that child will be a US citizen.

But on the flip side, the challengers have some concerns of their own that they raise.

They have a future looking concern where they say that the president's order would result in more non-citizens living in the US because a lot of people that would automatically be citizens