AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

[Cassandro]

The wording of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship requires a two part test. First, a person must be born or naturalized in the US. Second, that person must be subject to US jurisdiction. This wording means that merely being born in the US does not, by itself, confer citizenship.

Thus, the meaning of the second requirement for citizenship needs to be determined in the context of when and why it was written. Immediately after the Civil War, there were pressing issues regarding the legal status of former slaves and their children. The 14th Amendment was intended to annul the pernicious 2/3 Congressional representation provision in Article 2 of the Constitution and ensure that the aforementioned were granted the full rights of US citizenship.

Since no other purpose for the 14th Amendment existed at the time of its ratification, there is no basis for presuming that it intended to confer citizenship on other persons born in the US under temporary or illegal circumstances.

If you wish to comment, please do not bother to cite a century-old case whose basic facts are fundamentally different from the current case to be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The situation today is completely different than anything in the past. Children born to foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They have dual citizenship. Many are taken to their home countries and raised there only looking to American citizenship to claim a benefit.

 

[excalibur]

Over 1 million Chinese who were born in the USA, and taken back to China will, within a decade, be able to vote in our elections. That is "birthright" citizenship and why it needs to go.

 

[excalibur]

FFS

 

[toobfreak]

The situation today is completely different than anything in the past. Children born to foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They have dual citizenship. Many are taken to their home countries and raised there only looking to American citizenship to claim a benefit.

There are 1.5 million chinese living in China who grew up there and don't speak a word of English that we have given full US citizenship to because we allowed them to be BORN here, and they can come back here anytime and vote in any of our elections.

Another stupid, short-sighted law written in a way that no longer applies to our changing world and needs that is so vaguely written as to be forever subject to interpretation.

Unfortunately, I will be SHOCKED if the SCOTUS overturns birthright, being functionaries of procedure and the letter of the law rather than the intent and spirit of it.

 

[Winston]

FFS

A good argument. Let's examine it. An illegal alien steals someone's wallet in the United States. Can they be prosecuted? How about drunk driving? Now, can the son or daughter of a diplomat be prosecuted? Who has jurisdiction now? And it gets better.

I Japanese citizen steals someone's wallet in Japan and they come to visit Disney world. Can Japan send someone over here to arrest that Japanese citizen? Uh, no, they would have to go through the extradition process. In other words, the US has jurisdiction over both the illegal alien and the Japanese citizen.

 

[progressive hunter]

FFS

shes more right than wrong and gives a good argument why birth tourism and children of illegals shouldnt get citizenship,,

 

[Winston]

If you wish to comment, please do not bother to cite a century-old case whose basic facts are fundamentally different from the current case to be decided by the Supreme Court.

How is it fundamentally different? Do you even know who the Plantiff is in this case? It is called Trump v. Barbara. Who is Barbara?

Barbara is a pseudonym, it is not the ladies real name. She is remaining anonymous out of fear for her life. Isn't that sad. But, she is a Honduran refugee, with a legal refugee status and a legal right to be here. But she is not a citizen. She had a child born AFTER the EO was signed, her fourth, but her only child that, under this EO, would not be an American citizen.

Interestingly enough, applying the Domicile rule the Government mentioned during oral arguments would grant Barbara's child citizenship. It really appears the government is losing sight of just who the Plantiff is. And you are correct, there is a fundamental difference between Kim and Barbara. Kim's parents were here illegally and the SCOTUS considered him a citizen. Barbara is here legally, how can her kid be denied citizenship?