I think the most important point Eastman makes is that citizenship is not a one-party event. One can’t just say “I’m a citizen” to have it be true. One must get an affirmative response to a REQUEST for citizenship:
“May I become a citizen?”
“Yes, you may.” It is we, the citizenry, who must consent to a non-citizen changing that status.
On May 26, 2025 at 1:21 pm, scott s. said:
I think it’s a pretty well-argued brief. Though I think it tends to underplay the dicta of Wong Kim Ark (which dicta reads more like a law review article) it does highlight that Wong Kim Ark was all about a child of long time immigrants who, due to asian exclusion acts, were denied a “path to citizenship” even though they did “owe allegiance” to their adopted country. This question of allegiance vs jurisdiction goes to the heart of the matter IMHO.
As an aside, I think “natural born” hardliners are going to have to consider this carefully, as the mutual consent/allegiance concept I think contradicts their jus soli argument.
This article is filed under the category(s) Politics and was published May 25th, 2025 by Herschel Smith.
If you're interested in what else the The Captain's Journal has to say, you might try thumbing through the archives and visiting the main index, or; perhaps you would like to learn more about TCJ.
On May 26, 2025 at 11:06 am, Frank Clarke said:
I think the most important point Eastman makes is that citizenship is not a one-party event. One can’t just say “I’m a citizen” to have it be true. One must get an affirmative response to a REQUEST for citizenship:
“May I become a citizen?”
“Yes, you may.” It is we, the citizenry, who must consent to a non-citizen changing that status.
On May 26, 2025 at 1:21 pm, scott s. said:
I think it’s a pretty well-argued brief. Though I think it tends to underplay the dicta of Wong Kim Ark (which dicta reads more like a law review article) it does highlight that Wong Kim Ark was all about a child of long time immigrants who, due to asian exclusion acts, were denied a “path to citizenship” even though they did “owe allegiance” to their adopted country. This question of allegiance vs jurisdiction goes to the heart of the matter IMHO.
As an aside, I think “natural born” hardliners are going to have to consider this carefully, as the mutual consent/allegiance concept I think contradicts their jus soli argument.