This question of race and citizenship continued with the immigration acts that succeeded the 1952 McCarran Act. In 1965, there was an important shift in how the Congress regarded naturalization and who was actually eligible to naturalization. And so in the Hart-Celler Act, it abolished all racial quotas and established a race-neutral immigration act. Now, that did not change the quotas that still existed from different nations, different countries. And the quotas that existed at the time heavily favored Northern European countries. But it was an important step in eliminating from our Naturalization Act from the notion of who could become a citizen of the United State, the matter of race. But it didn't go away. It keeps coming back because race is such a fundamental part of the social foundations of our society. In 2008, Representative Nathan Deal and also Tancredo tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship by amending an immigration bill. That's an important and critical movement. And they also got about 92 members of Congress to sign onto this. What they are trying to do in this move, is to go back in time, back actually to the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, which says that all persons born or naturalized are citizens, and revoke the birthright clause. Now the reason behind that is that there are many people who are concerned and even upset with the idea that undocumented immigrants who have kids in the United States, those kids have birthright citizenship. Because the 14th Amendment says all persons born on American soil are citizens of the United States. They would like to figure out a way to revoke that. Now there have been two attacks on this. One has been to repeal the 14th Amendment. And Governor Wilson of California also proposed that when he was governor. And Tancredo and Deal have also suggested that. The other one is to try to find some loophole in the 14th Amendment. And the logic of that goes something like this. They believe that the clause in the 14th Amendment, which says that in order to be a citizens, and particularly a naturalized citizen, you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And they argue that children born of undocumented parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they didn't have the free will to commit to that jurisdiction. Now, there's little understanding as to why that clause is there and what it actually means in the 14th Amendment. And so I think there is not a chance that they could use that as a loophole to revoke the citizenship of the American-born children of undocumented immigrants. That clause has two meanings. One, is the children of foreign-born diplomats, that they are not citizens of the United States. But also, the clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment, actually replaced the clause that had been used since the 1790s census, Indians not taxed. And so, they'd always use that, in order to deny citizenship to Native Americans. And in the 14th Amendment, it is discussed explicitly on the floor of the House and the Senate, that they are now changing the clause from Indians not taxed to subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that clause was also used to deny citizenship to the about 90% of the Native American population. Because in Congress at the time, they argued that Native Americans had quasi-nation status and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And thus, Native Americans born within the United States were not citizens of the United States. And that was also upheld also by the Supreme Court. And so, the notion that you could use that as a loophole has very low chance. The only way to revoke birthright citizenship would be to repeal the 14th Amendment. And that would require two-thirds votes of both houses of the Congress. And it also would require ratification by three-fourths of the states of the United States. So it's very much an uphill climb.