O.K., so this is a ruling on the situation pending the decision. Still, I was assuming it was a wingnut judge. When the word "international" popped up in his bio, hmmm that's not a wingnut orientation. Then, although endorsed by Texas Repukes, he was nominated by OBAMA.

It would seem that the only issues are proof that the child was born in the U.S. and DNA that the child is the parents'. If he rules the correct way in the end, this temporary ruling should add to the cred.




*********QUOTE********

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman

Robert Lee Pitman (born 1962) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and former United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas. He was previously a United States magistrate judge on the same court.

.... After completing law school, Pitman served as a law clerk for Judge David Belew Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth.[3] Pitman holds a Masters Degree in International Human Rights Law from the University of Oxford.

Following his judicial clerkship, Pitman began his career at the international law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski.

In 2001, Pitman briefly served as interim United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas.[3] As US Attorney on September 11, 2001, he formed the first anti-terrorism task force in the district, uniting local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in their counter-terrorism efforts and in their work to better secure Texas' international border. He was replaced by George W. Bush appointee Johnny Sutton, who asked Pitman to remain in the office as his chief deputy.

n 2009, Republican Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison sent Pitman's name to Democratic President Barack Obama as one of two candidates for United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas.[6][7] The recommendation of Pitman, who is openly gay, was publicly opposed by a social conservative group in Texas.[6][7] On June 27, 2011, almost two years after Pitman was recommended for the post, Obama notified members of congress that he would nominate Pitman to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas.[8] He was formally nominated the following day.

Personal
Pitman is a sixth-generation Texan and lives in Austin. He is an avid outdoorsman and horseman.

At the time Pitman was the first openly gay United States Attorney in Texas.[14] He was one of four openly LGBT U.S. Attorneys, alongside Jenny Durkan of the Western District of Washington, Laura Duffy of the Southern District of California and Anne Tompkins of the Western District of North Carolina.[15]

Upon receiving his judicial commission Pitman became the first openly gay judge to sit on the federal bench in the entire 5th Circuit Court system, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

********UNQUOTE*******

except later for their own purposes. (Just talking to myself.)

On the one hand, a child's citizenship isn't up for discussion. It's not Texas' place to grant citizenship or not. It's registered, documented, and done.

On the other hand, the choice of IDs acceptable is up for discussion. It's not the parents' status as "immigrants" that's at issue--another place the article decides to depart from accurate reporting--it's their undocumented status, where "undocumented" refers to valid forms of US identification.

"Quick thinking" says this is easy, but "slow thinking" says there are ramifications elsewhere and it's not the easy, quick politically desirable decision that we'd like.


A second tricky place is the following: If Texas is to be seen as denying citizenship on the basis of denying the issuance of a valid copy of the kid's birth certificate, what would that say about Texas' not issuing a valid ID for voting purposes to those without valid birth certicates because their births weren't registered or they simply lack ID. Do we want to say that Texas is denying citizenship to that group of people, retroactively for 70 or 80 years regardless of the treatment since then? Because in some sense those are also undocumented.

(Pointing out again that the problem here isn't the kid's documentation, but the undocumented, not immigrant, status of the applicants. Judging the validity of numerous ID documents issued by extraterritorial government agencies is a nightmare; I had to keep I-9 files and had photocopies of an assortment of other state's driver's licenses, the validity of none of which I could assess as I enforced federal immigration law and determined worker eligibility.)


Which brings us to the third tricky point. Let's say I go in and say I'm so-and-so's parent and want a copy of his birth certificate. But I don't have any of the valid forms of ID. I'm a US citizen, my kid is, and my "undocumented status" may be transitory or intentional. If there are no forms of ID that are required to be valid, then I could claim this not just for Igeling (who, in any event, wasn't born in Texas) but for any child I have adequate information about.

If there are valid forms of ID and the state doesn't have the legal authority to declare what they are, does that mean the courts are responsible for this? Or can a state court (or federal court) ex parte make this a federal-level executive function in the absence of any controlling law? Because this is a deeply bureaucratic, executive-branch function on an issue that has been given to the state for the last 200+ years to the state but which the attorneys are trying to say really is a federal function or has an adverse impact on a federal function (I'll assume the reporter's just one of whose who failed US history and government or got a mercy pass).