Why I'm Certain Birthright Citizenship Will Fail

[Unkotare]

...

A baby being born here cannot be a US citizen unless one of two conditions are met:

1. They are naturalized as a citizen at some point in their life through application and acceptance.
2. At the time of their birth, at least one of their parents was already a full US citizen.

That is not currently the law.

 

[protectionist]

That is not currently the law.

Yes it is, so said the 1866 author of the 14 amendment. This was already covered and put to rest in Post # 8.

Will not include foreigners, the aliens with diplomatic immunity....when on our soil....those who are working for their foreign country.

Those in our govt, when traveling in the other's foreign country, have diplomatic immunity.....as well.

Diplomatic immunity is another subject. Birthright citizenship is for children of US citizens. Children of foreigners are excluded. Covered in Post # 8.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes it is, so said the 1866 author of the 14 amendment. This was already covered and put to rest in Post # 8.

Diplomatic immunity is another subject. Birthright citizenship is for children of US citizens. Children of foreigners are excluded. Covered in Post # 8.

Except that has not been the case for at least 126 since the Wong decision.

Probably longer, as the idea of birthright citizenship goes back to English Common law.

 

[Delldude]

Emphasize on "illegal"

What your dear leader is trying to do (by EO, of course) is illegal.

No it's not. He is challenging the wording in the COTUS.

Duh...............that's how you get it to SCOTUS for a decision.

 

[Delldude]

Except that has not been the case for at least 126 since the Wong decision.

What if they were wong?

Probably longer, as the idea of birthright citizenship goes back to English Common law.

Yeah but it's not what your think.

The common law concept of territorial birthright citizenship is the foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which confers citizenship on those born within the United States and "subject" to its "jurisdiction." Likewise territorial underpinnings were the basis for over 375 years of birthright citizenship within the United Kingdom.

 

[Rawley]

No it's not. He is challenging the wording in the COTUS.

Duh...............that's how you get it to SCOTUS for a decision.

Not really challenging the wording - he's challenging the current interpretation of the wording.

Their interpretation is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

I think he's got a very good case.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I have a very meager legal training, but the other night, I caught an actual constitutional scholar on TV being interviewed on the matter of birthright citizenship that confirmed a lot that I've suspected, and why Trump will win his challenge. It made me wonder how the 14th Amendment has been left to go on as long as it has. I guess its a bit like RvW, flawed, but until Trump, no one was willing to challenge it. Let me try to explain it as this guy best explained in his interview.

In the context of the authors, when they said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, they were referring to slaves. Back in the early 19th century, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. Further, of course if you enter the country or are born here, you are subject to some degree of jurisdiction of the US government, but they meant subject to the FULL jurisdiction of US law, and illegal aliens obviously are not. Illegal aliens are citizens of other countries under their law and jurisdiction even when they come here. Someone coming here pregnant dropping a kid was never intended that the child suddenly automatically just become a full citizen. This is a discombobulation of the author's original intent, allowed to float for ages under liberal interpretation, and I expect the SCOTUS will overturn it soon.

You can see it wasn’t intended for citizens of other countries by the exclusion of diplomats, foreign military and members of the various Indian tribes.