哪怕是外国人，但在美国境内，就受美国管辖，属于under US jurisdiction啊。。
这句话到底怎么解读，一直就很有争议。你去看当初华人那个案子是怎么赢的吧，以及其中的波折
加拿大其实也一样，加拿大公民来美国工作好象不需要象别国一样H1, 我记得有个什么PROGRAM, 而且申绿卡也容易的很
加拿大公民要拿绿卡，也得通过拿H1B 这一步，跟其他国家的人一样。
只是加拿大公民如果不打算拿绿卡，只是想在美国工作的话相对来说容易得多。只要在美国找到工作，雇主只需出一封employment letter, 然后拿到这封信，去离自己最近的那个美加边境的美国一方出示信件，那么当场就会给你一个work permit （叫TN），凭着这个就可以在美国合法工作。这个TN 工签每年续一次，一次大概几十刀，从第二年起，无需再亲自去，每年邮寄申请renewal 即可。
这句话到底怎么解读，一直就很有争议。你去看当初华人那个案子是怎么赢的吧，以及其中的波折
对 SCOTUS 完全可以interpret to their liking
北京遇上西雅图没法再拍了
哪那么容易，得改宪法。
好家伙，多少月子中心要倒闭了
定点打击南加州华人区部分产业？
他就这四年了，说不定四年不到就嘎了。
所以别把他的话当玩笑
副总统Vance笑哈哈，继续干，尤其是他还年轻。
看过宪法原文，同意他的团队的解读。当初这个本身也是靠华人的一个判例确定的，和roe and wade 一样。所以推翻方法也一样。
我家不受影响，但一直很好奇有多少投他的华人的孩子是在公民后生的。
是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres
What About Wong Kim Ark?
Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different.
It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese.
At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects.
Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die.
This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was.
While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile.
This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too.
In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.
是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres
What About Wong Kim Ark?
Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different.
It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.
At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese.
At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects.
Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die.
This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was.
While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile.
This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too.
In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous.
Yup, if roe v wade can be overturned, all others can be overturned too.
SCOTUS will support Trump
你们真逗，人家要的是白娃，你们出谋划策怎么不影响f1/h签证的， lol
到底了
Hot Deals
All Deals