Illegals are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States unless a misinterpretation of the Constitution is applied. They are citizens of and subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they came from. It in no way intended that their children be citizens because they managed to get into the country illegally or any other way. The 14th amendment was originally intended to give citizenship status to the freed slaves.
Can we simply get rid of the 14th Amendment? Like happened to the prohibition amendment?
If that were true they would not be able to be arrested, charges with a crime, or sued civilly.
No. We need an iron clad law to protect genuine American citizens. A law that cannot be overturned by malicious prosecution or whatever. We Americans need to know that our children have the same Constitutional protections that we have.
Not sure what you mean. There is constitutional basis for reversing Wong Kim Ark. No Amendment to the 14th is necessary. Just a proper interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th.
Yes, they are. SCOTUS decided that over 130 years ago.
You can't just change an interpretation of diplomatic treaties and agreements on a whim without justification. That is why you need an amendment where there can be no doubt.
That was my thinking as well. Change the 14th Amendment by amending it.
??? What treaties are you talking about?
I love living in a time when precedent means nothing. Next up...Heller and the 2nd Amendment.
Still pining for Plessy to still be the law? Really?I love living in a time when precedent means nothing. Next up...Heller and the 2nd Amendment.
He may give you specifics, but there are a variety of international diplomatic and trade treaties approved by the Senate.
Nope. I like Heller and my emotional support carbines. But precedent is now irrelevant.
Duh. None of them relate to birthright citizenship.
I posted the reasons that illegals have no birthright citizenship when the Constitution is interpreted as originally intended. You saying ove rand over that it does without giving any rationale other than an old SCOTUS ruling that the current court can overturn at will does not not make your point of view any more valid.
Diplomatic relations between countries are most often agreed upon by both parties. You do realize that treaties with foreign countries are enforceable under the Constitution, right?
That is your error. In 1898, the 14th Amendment was interpreted by the court to grant birthright citizenship. How are you going to change that based on the current wording of the Constitution? You can't!
Are they?
How would not granting birthright citizenship have any effect on any of the treaties you are talking about? Any effect.
Again ??? Plessy interpreted "equal protection under the law" to include "separate but equal" 70 years later, Brown said they got that interpretation wrong. No change to the wording of the 14th was necessary
