Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

Your opinion of what the 14th means is not what the 14th means. Sorry.

"Subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean "subject to US laws" and it's kind of silly... if you are IN the US, you ARE subject to the laws of the US. And US laws don't apply anywhere but in the US. So to say "in the US and subject to the laws of the US" is redundant. And diplomats ARE subject to US laws.. they can't be prosecuted, but they are still subject to the law. Breaking the law, especially if it's intentional, can result in expulsion or the home country waiving diplomatic immunity. Diplomats are still expected to obey all US laws while in our country.

If you bother to read the history behind the 14th and what was debated in structuring the language, you will understand that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not refer to geography. It is referring to allegiance owed. This is repeated over and over in every one of the case law examples you guys are throwing up.

But here is what has happened... Some pinhead on MSNBC has told you that the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, and that's what you believe. You see other pinheads here defending it so you assume it must be correct. When an "evil con" tries to have a rational conversation with you about what the Constitution actually says and how this all works, you reject it because you're trained like a seal to bark the lines you've been taught.

This is an enumerated power of Congress. If illegal alien babies are being born today and becoming citizens it's because of statutory policy which allows it, or in Obama's case, ignores it. This is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Congress has plenary power.
You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

I wonder why Boss has grown so silent on this issue?

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.
 
There is no 'natural born citizen' act because 'natural born citizen' exists in the Constitution- and pre-dates the Constitution

Please show me where this is at in the Constitution? :dunno:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is Congress's role in defining citizenship:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers


Nothing there about Congress being able to pass laws determining who is a natural born citizen.

.....

So you are showing me an undefined term (natural born citizen) and one that has been debated through the years countless times, pertaining to the qualifications to hold the office of the President. The Constitution simply doesn't define "natural born citizen" and therein lies your problem. Now... IF the Constitution went on to say that a "natural born citizen" is someone who was born on US soil regardless of the legal status or citizenship of it's parents and solely by the criteria of being born on US soil... THEN you'd have an argument... but it does not state any such thing and neither does the 14th Amendment, or you wouldn't have ever had the Wong case or the Plyler case.

Look... Basically this SAME argument arose at the beginning of the 20th century over citizenship for Native Americans... These are people who were not foreigners, not aliens who crossed our borders illegally, but people who have lived on this land for centuries before we even knew the continent existed. If ANYONE should be afforded "birthright citizenship" you'd think it would be Native Fucking Americans! But the Court did not agree... they ruled the Native Americans were not "subject to jurisdiction" because they did not owe total allegiance to the US, because they still remained in allegiance to their respective tribes. So they were denied citizenship on this basis until CONGRESS acted. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act was adopted to confer citizenship on Native Americans, regardless of any tribal affiliation or claim to property.

Even THAT did not grant citizenship to ALL Native Americans... it took another ACT OF CONGRESS (Not SCOTUS ruling) in 1940... Nationality Act of 1940 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
There is no 'natural born citizen' act because 'natural born citizen' exists in the Constitution- and pre-dates the Constitution

Please show me where this is at in the Constitution? :dunno:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is Congress's role in defining citizenship:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers


Nothing there about Congress being able to pass laws determining who is a natural born citizen.

.....

So you are showing me an undefined term (natural born citizen) and one that has been debated through the years countless times, pertaining to the qualifications to hold the office of the President. The Constitution simply doesn't define "natural born citizen" and therein lies your problem. Now... IF the Constitution went on to say that a "natural born citizen" is someone who was born on US soil regardless of the legal status or citizenship of it's parents and solely by the criteria of being born on US soil... THEN you'd have an argument... but it does not state any such thing and neither does the 14th Amendment, or you wouldn't have ever had the Wong case or the Plyler case.a

The Constitution does not define "Natural Born Citizen' but that doesn't mean the writers didn't know what it meant- and how it was differentiated from Naturalized citizens.

Lets us go back to Congress's defined powers- once again

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,


Nowhere is Naturalization defined in the Constitution- but it is a well defined legal term.

Where does it say that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Natural born citizens?

The Constitution makes reference to two types of citizenship- "Natural Born' and "naturalized"(by referring to Naturalization).

Congress has the authority to write legislation on one under the Constitution- but no authority regarding the other.
 
You are an idiot. You repeat the same nonsense and each time you do you remain an idiot.

All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

I wonder why Boss has grown so silent on this issue?

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

Okay... Let's clarify something about the Wong decision...
Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment.

This is not stated. This is your interpretation of what WAS stated. However, what they are talking about is the very thing we are arguing here... "subject to jurisdiction" and what it means. In the case of Wong, these were LEGAL immigrants. They were being denied birthright citizenship on the basis of not being "subject to jurisdiction" because they were not in full allegiance to the US. The Court found that the US government recognized them as LEGAL immigrants, thereby making them "subject to jurisdiction" by their own actions. The snippet you keep posting is their finding that "subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean the parents must be citizens of the US, that they only have to meet the criteria of "subject to jurisdiction" and this is confirmed with the fact they are here legally, with permission of the US government. Illegal aliens are NOT here legally with permission of the US government.
 
Where does it say that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Natural born citizens?

Congress has plenary authority to establish uniform rules of citizenship regardless of "natural" born, "artificial" born, "extraterrestrial" born... doesn't matter.
 
SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866

[Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan was a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction
that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment. He was the floor manager for the Amendment in the
Senate. In this speech, he introduces the Amendment on the floor of the Senate and explains its
purposes.]

a citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.”

...

"It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the
expression, "citizen of the United States,"
1
although that expression occurs twice in the
Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is
declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to
Senators, who are likewise to be citizens of the United States.

Undoubtedly the expression is
used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now
before us.

A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born
within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.

Before the adoption of the
Constitution of the United States, the citizens of each State were, in a qualified sense at least,
aliens to one another, for the reason that the several States before that event were regarded by
each other as independent Governments, each one possessing a sufficiency of sovereign power to
enable it to claim the right of naturalization; and, undoubtedly, each one of them possessed for
itself the right of naturalizing foreigners, and each one, also, if it had seen fit so to exercise its
sovereign power, might have declared the citizens of every other State to be aliens in reference to
itself. With a view to prevent such confusion and disorder, and to put the citizens of the several
States on an equality with each other as to all fundamental rights,

a clause was introduced in the
Constitution declaring that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States."

The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the
original States citizens of the United States.

And how did they antecedently become citizens of
the several States? By birth or by naturalization.


They became such in virtue of national law, or
rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as
being subjects or citizens of that country.


Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United
States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution
declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States.
They are, by constitutional right, entitled to these privileges and immunities, and
may assert this right and these privileges and immunities, and ask for their enforcement
whenever they go within the limits of the several states of the Union."


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/senatorhowardspeechonthefourteenthamendment.pdf
 
"OR", the two letter word or separates born and naturalized. The meaning of the word naturalized has nothing to do with the part of the amendment that says "born".
 
Let me also add another legal aspect to this....

Congress has never acted to strip citizenship once it is established. They have the power to establish who is a citizen but once they are a citizen, they can't be denied citizenship later. Statutory policy is considered to be congressional action whether congress acts or doesn't act. Sanctuary cities and a Justice Department indifferent to status of illegal aliens is very problematic with regards to how this all goes down.

If our government apparatus has officially recognized any illegal persons as "subject to jurisdiction" then they have a legitimate 14th Amendment right to claim citizenship and the court can uphold that right. This means, the issuing drivers licenses, giving benefits, providing education, possibly even providing emergency health care... constitutes an acknowledgement of "subject to jurisdiction" and these people will eventually become legal citizens.

That does not mean that Congress can't intervene to pass a law specifically preventing any future children of illegal aliens from becoming citizens by birth. That CAN be done and future courts would have to uphold it as Congressional power to establish naturalization.
 
"OR", the two letter word or separates born and naturalized. The meaning of the word naturalized has nothing to do with the part of the amendment that says "born".

A LOT of people were born on US soil after passage of this Amendment... how do you explain why they were not citizens by birth? You see... AFTER "Naturalized" comes the word AND --This implies there is another criteria which must also apply.

If the 14th said: Any persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens... you'd have a legitimate argument. But that's not what it says!
 
There is no 'natural born citizen' act because 'natural born citizen' exists in the Constitution- and pre-dates the Constitution

Please show me where this is at in the Constitution? :dunno:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Here is Congress's role in defining citizenship:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers


Nothing there about Congress being able to pass laws determining who is a natural born citizen.

.....


Look... Basically this SAME argument arose at the beginning of the 20th century over citizenship for Native Americans... These are people who were not foreigners, not aliens who crossed our borders illegally, but people who have lived on this land for centuries before we even knew the continent existed. If ANYONE should be afforded "birthright citizenship" you'd think it would be Native Fucking Americans! But the Court did not agree... they ruled the Native Americans were not "subject to jurisdiction" because they did not owe total allegiance to the US, because they still remained in allegiance to their respective tribes. So they were denied citizenship on this basis until CONGRESS acted. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act was adopted to confer citizenship on Native Americans, regardless of any tribal affiliation or claim to property.a


All I've repeated is the Constitution and what it says. You can research the meaning of "subject to jurisdiction in the 14th amendment" and find plenty of resource material to explain it to you... avoid liberal biased sources with opinions of what it means, and stick with historical fact-based sources. If you do that, you'll discover that it doesn't mean "geographical jurisdiction" at all, if it did... you would have American citizen soldiers and their wives stationed in Honduras having babies that weren't US citizens because they weren't born in the right geographical jurisdiction.

So it simply cannot mean what you keep interpreting.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Children born in Honduras to American citizen soldiers are not born U.S. citizens based upon the 14th Amendment- because- of course- they are not born in the United States.

They are born U.S. citizens based upon being born to U.S. citizens

As the court noted in Wong Kim Ark- jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means the same thing in the first section.

Plyler v. Doe says illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- according to the Constitution is a U.S. citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens.

Correct. And my argument remains, children of two foreign born parents in our country illegally, are not "subject to jurisdiction" and do not qualify. You argue that "subject to jurisdiction" essentially means the same as "within the jurisdiction of law." As of yet, you've posted no finding from any court or argument from any legitimate scholar that the Constitution says what you claim.

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

I wonder why Boss has grown so silent on this issue?

Actually I have posted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly that repeatedly.

I will repost what Wong Kim Ark said about 'jurisdiction' again- and you will ignore it- again

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment

Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal aliens within the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Combine the two- and there is the complete validation of the actual accepted policy in effect today regarding a child born in the United States.

Okay... Let's clarify something about the Wong decision...
Wong Kim Ark specifically stated that 'subject to the jurisdiction' means the same thing as 'within the jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment.

This is not stated. This is your interpretation of what WAS stated. However, what they are talking about is the very thing we are arguing here... "subject to jurisdiction" and what it means. In the case of Wong, these were LEGAL immigrants. They were being denied birthright citizenship on the basis of not being "subject to jurisdiction" because they were not in full allegiance to the US. The Court found that the US government recognized them as LEGAL immigrants, thereby making them "subject to jurisdiction" by their own actions. The snippet you keep posting is their finding that "subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean the parents must be citizens of the US, that they only have to meet the criteria of "subject to jurisdiction" and this is confirmed with the fact they are here legally, with permission of the US government. Illegal aliens are NOT here legally with permission of the US government.

I am glad to post what Wong Kim Ark said again

This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section;
or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."


And what did Plyler v. Doe say about illegal aliens and 'jurisdiction'?
Well Plyler v. Doe references Wong Kim Ark- and that same paragraph on 'jurisdiction'


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was


impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."

Wong Kim Ark states plainly and clearly that there no way to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Plyler v. Doe recognized that illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States- evoking that same language.

You want to ignore the plain language regarding jurisdiction the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe- but no one else is.

 
Last edited:
Where does it say that Congress has the authority to write legislation regarding Natural born citizens?

Congress has plenary authority to establish uniform rules of citizenship regardless of "natural" born, "artificial" born, "extraterrestrial" born... doesn't matter.

And where does it say that in the Constitution?
 
Let me also add another legal aspect to this....

Congress has never acted to strip citizenship once it is established. They have the power to establish who is a citizen but once they are a citizen, they can't be denied citizenship later.

New law allows deportation of naturalized US citizens - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

WASHINGTON, Jan 5: A new intelligence law, and now a court ruling, have further strengthened the US government's power to strip a person of his citizenship even if he committed the crime after naturalization.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top