As the semester draws to a close at Georgia State University’s College of Law, Professor Anthony Michael Kreis has traded the classroom for the vibrant patio at Press and Grind cafe in Virginia-Highland.
While enjoying a large hot coffee with a dash of skim milk, Kreis finds joy in the laid-back atmosphere, noting, “There are a few of us that linger here for hours. The baristas don’t seem to mind us.”
But relaxation is not on the agenda for Kreis, who is an eminent expert in civil liberties and constitutional law. He has recently captured national attention as a key commentator on President Donald Trump’s controversial moves to reshape federal government policies.
One central inquiry among journalists and scholars has been the legality behind Trump’s executive order that seeks to invalidate the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.
Kreis’s stance on this matter is clear and resolute: It is not within Trump’s power to change birthright citizenship.
In a legal article published in March, Kreis and his coauthors, Evan Bernick and Paul Gowder, argued that the notion of denying citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants is fundamentally incompatible with the established principles of the rule of law.
Their piece serves as a rebuttal to a New York Times op-ed by legal scholars Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman, who advocated for Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
This engagement has thrust Kreis and his colleagues into the center of a vigorous online discourse surrounding the constitutionality of citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants.
While some might call it a debate, Kreis insists it is a non-issue, emphasizing that birthright citizenship was settled law since its codification in 1868 following the Civil War. The 14th Amendment explicitly grants citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Kreis elaborates, saying, “The history is unambiguous about what they were trying to do, which was to make clear that nativity is what makes a citizen a citizen.”
Despite the clarity in history, a small group of legal scholars has been advocating a previously fringe theory suggesting that the term “jurisdiction” does not extend to undocumented immigrants or their descendants.
Kreis and his coauthors rebut this theory, asserting, “Advancing a sloppy position that children could be punished with statelessness, for whatever the sins of their parents, is contrary to our constitutional tradition.”
The passionate tone of their paper was deliberate, as Kreis felt it necessary to counter the dangerous credibility granted to what he termed an “off-the-wall idea” by such a reputable platform.
Furthermore, Kreis expressed frustration over the trivialization of the debate, particularly when Barnett responded with a meme mocking him on social media. “I can take arrows, but a law professor laughing at homophobic jokes because I said, ‘You’re wrong’—that’s just unbecoming for anybody,” Kreis remarked.
Despite the occasional tension, Kreis remains committed to the discourse, maintaining that Trump’s order will ultimately be scrutinized in court.
In his view, the anti-birthright citizenship movement is unlikely to prevail long-term, stating, “We constitutionalized this question so that there would be no debate.”
As the summer unfolds, Kreis continues to engage in this pivotal legal discussion from his sunny patio office, blending academia with real-world implications.
image source from：atlantamagazine
