OK here is what makes little sense, Yes we need to look at better rules with immigration.
First they're all citizens now, legally BTW, don't think they came in the backdoor across the Rio Grande.
SO ok, selective choice of who gets to stay & who has to go is only based on who has the most money & power?
Another generation lost because of teachers like you. I suppose you didn't teach your students the Pledge of Allegiance either. The pledge has a lot more than soil in it which has nothing to do with soil. You pledge your allegiance to the Constitution, Liberty, Freedom and American justice for all. Oh, and to God as we are all under God.
Where has anything like this been said? Trump is a citizen and that is all that matters as far as his kids go. Why are you attempting to muddy the waters with extraneous BS?
OK, another ignorant asshole spouts off! Please show me where the Pledge is codified in law. In case you didn't know it isn't, and SCOTUS has ruled you cannot be forced to say it. Yes, we said the Pledge in my schools every morning and sometimes we didn't because the school district did not require it. I taught in 7 school districts, and it was not said in only one districts and that was an inner city school full of foreign-born students. The Pledge has nothing to do with citizenship.
Did I say that?
No other country has it. There is a reason for that.A couple of excellent articles defining what birthright citizenship is under COTUS. It has been abused and has strayed from the original intent. It's time for this abuse or the law to be dealt with.
President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on US soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist — and obviously wrong as a legal matter.
But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the US Department of State or any other executive agency.
The case for ending birthright citizenship
unherd.com
Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.
___________________
Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?
Birthright Citizenship: Game On!
The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.americanmind.org
that is why DEI is illegal
