Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

Certainly that was the intent of the 14th Amendment.

Today, there are many people who claim that line means "subject to the laws of the United States".

But that makes no sense. Everyone living in the US was subject to the laws, or "jurisdiction" of the US. Who wouldn't be subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the US?

Going by the authors writings, the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant the person had no allegiance to a foreign power, and therefor would only be held to the laws and jurisdiction of the US. A person would have to have formally renounced their citizenship to the country they came from. Obviously, illegal aliens have not done that, and therefor are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Nation of citizenship, and not to the US.

 

Diplomats. The Constitution spells out "all people", and it means just that. The only group who is not subject to US laws/jurisdiction are diplomats, who enjoy immunity from US laws. At the same time, they do not enjoy all protections of the US laws, like birthright citizenship.

 

They specifically spelled out "all people".

 

Why don't you just answer why you are so against amending the Constitution? That is the right way to do it, and would have plenty of support.

Why do you oppose it?

 

Everyone on US soil us subject to US jurisdiction, except:

• Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;
  
  
• Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has never yet happened in the US proper, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and perhaps other territories); and
  
  
• Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)
  

 

Obviously NOT on both points.

 

I asked what the authors of the 14th Amendment said about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I seems to me you must know, but don't want to touch it.

 

Good. It was clearly being exploited.

 

“All people subject to”

Which should not inclued illegal aliens and chinese tourists

 

You can speculate and pretend to know everything everyone said, or you can go with the wording they actually chose to use to amend the Constitution. They chose to write "all persons", not "slaves, and their descendants".

The argument that jurisdiction means "political allegiance" is Heritage foundation nonsense. How can a newly born infant have political allegiance to anyone, or anything? See, the problem is that the 14th is not talking about the parents, it is talking about the infant who was born in USA.

What do you have against amending the Constitution by proper means? I'd support it.

 

I keep asking you a simple question, which you have trouble answering

Why are you so against amending the Constitution? That is the right way to do it, and would have plenty of support.

Why do you oppose it?

 

That's not what the authors of the 14th amendment said.

 

Why don't you provide a quote from each one of them, so we can take a peek?

More importantly, why do you oppose amending, or repealing the clause?

I am beginning to find it weird people go to no end to argue how they don't like it, and yet at the same time they do not want to change it.

 

If thats what they meant then why include the rest of the sentence?

Why not say all persons born within the US are citizens?

 

It does say that.

Why are you so against amending the Constitution? That is the right way to do it, and would have plenty of support.

Why do you oppose it?

 

So the children of chinese tourists deserve American citizenship?

 

You cling to the amendment route because you know it will take many years to accomplish and millions upon millions of foreigners will be able to use the loophole before it can be stopped

The supreme court can define the meaning of the 14th in much less time

 

See post 267

 

It doesn't come under the commerce clause and it's not a privacy issue. The odds look real good.

 

I would not say "deserve", but the way the Constitution was written the baby has the right to it.

Why do you oppose amending, or repealing the clause since you clearly don't like it?

 

Exactly

The 14th amendment means WHATEVER five unelected demigods on the high court say it means

And they can easily exclude illegal aliens and chinese tourists from the prize pool

 

That can be changed

See post 267 or 271

 

No, that is not true. And who says it would take years? Repealing prohibition did not take anywhere near that long.

I cling to it, because it is the Constitutional way to do it.

Why do you oppose amending, or repealing the clause since you clearly don't like it?

 

The children of diplomats are excluded already. There's good precedent.

 

It would take years becaue every liberal in America is against it