The Supreme Court and the "politics" of birthright citizenship and of course changing tunes of history.

[jacksonlamb]

Obviously I agree with the dissent.

What it really breaks down to is Vattel vs. Blackstone. And I believe it is very evident the founders embraced Vattel's ideas on allegiance and citizenship deriving from heritage and natural law. They rejected Blackstone's idea that any person born on a monarch's soil owes allegiance to them for life via divine right.

We fought a war over this.

SCOTUS does not care. It will side with Wong.

 

[kyzr]

Then we need to change the wording of the 14th. Right?

Maybe. Or they could just clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said back in 1907 "the Constitution says what we judges say it says".

https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/Hughes-Hubris

 

[JoeB131]

Because the clear language of the Amendment and the contemporary thoughts of the authors specifically excluded citizens of other countries, Indians, foreign troops and diplomats and their families from the act.

Actually, the clear language only exempts the last three groups, not "citizens of other countries".

(And Native Americans are all now citizens, so that's a moot point.)

ANyone born here is a citizen unless he's the child of a diplomat.