At a minimum, this will (probably) go to the Supreme Court and finally answer the question on whether merely being born on US soil regardless of the parent's legal national residence makes one a US citizen.

We are the only nation that has this "feature."  No other country lets a mother give birth in their state and bestow citizenship on the child allowing him/her to remain in the country as a citizen.  We give kids born of foreign parents here dual citizenship which is bizarre.  A mother from China could have a kid here then take the child back to child and raise it.  That child then has full citizenship status in the US until, say, 21 when they decide to return to the US and join the State Department or serve in Congress.

All kinds of scenarios where we should do away with this outdated solution meant to make slaves born in the US who have no other country of their own to be granted citizenship.

so waycist

so waycist

There are no Caucasian anchor babies?  I was unaware.

Thats some gymnastics for an executive order to suspend a constitutional amendment. Have to see how this one plays out.

Thats some gymnastics for an executive order to suspend a constitutional amendment. Have to see how this one plays out.

The part up for interpretation is jurisdiction.  Children born in the US by foreign dignitaries dont get citizenship because dignitaries aren't affected by US laws.  Same could be interpreted for illegal immigrants crossing the border.  I don't think it can be applied to persons on current visas tho.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...."

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  Very important words.

In my opinion doesn't apply to illegal immigrants.

There are no Caucasian anchor babies?  I was unaware.

waycist again.
I just say that as default to things I don't agree with but can't find an answer to. But I agree with you even though I think I am wrong.

Thats some gymnastics for an executive order to suspend a constitutional amendment. Have to see how this one plays out.

Please show where Trump said he was suspending a Constitutional Amendment.

You're creating a straw argument again.

Roe v. Wade did not require a new amendment to give women the "right" to have an abortion.  The Supreme Court simply interpreted the right to privacy in a new way -- sort of a Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon way.  If the relationship between a doctor and patient is privileged, and a doctor is performing abortions, then the doctor also has a right to privacy which prevents the government from intervening in their practice.  Most people got it wrong when they said Roe was about protecting the pregnant mother's rights.  It was really about protecting the doctors.  There is no other right that is afforded to a third party this way, but that's how the Liberal majority court decided.  It  took decades to correct that legal blunder.

Something similar is needed for birthright citizenship.  The amendment was created after the Civil War to ensure African slaves born in the US of foreign parents would be granted citizenship.  The 14th amendment is all about post civil war issues including citizenship, due process, equal protection, privileges or immunities, rebellion and other crime(s), etc.  All of these were post civil war issues that needed to be addressed federally so the Southern states could not infringe on the rights of freed slaves and the North could not infringe on the rights of former Confederate soldiers.

There's no need to repeal or "suspend" the amendment if the Supreme Court rules that, based on the plain language and original intent of the law, we've been doing it wrong all these decades.

This will be interesting.

At Annapolis, there is a ethics class. Say you rescue a vessel traveling illegally from Cuba to Florida. The boat isn't sinking, but they are waving for help as it's often a make shift type raft. A pregnant woman comes aboard and gives birth.  That ship is "US soil" and thus the child is a US citizen by birth.

Then you have that Korean CEO who gave birth here so her son doesn't have to join their selective service since he's a US citizen.

Since the many politicians are already shitting on the 2A, what's the harm in shitting on any other "born on US soil" right?  Send em back with their parents. If the country of origin doesn't take them, then oh well.

The thing that caught my attention is, when a person with foreign citizenship commits a crime on US soil, we arrest them.  But, depending on the crime, we will usually deport them into the custody of their own country, and that country will apply their laws and legal system to their citizen.

An American can be thrown into a foreign prison for breaking their laws while in that country.  But if they come home before the foreign police can arrest them outside the US, those cops can't just show up at the house in the US and take them back for trial and punishment.  That country must go through the extradition process, assuming they have an extradition treaty with the US.  Even then, the US may decide to deny extradition.  All of that, because you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not the country you were a visitor in.

That pretty much describes what's meant by "jurisdiction" in my mind.  Which means I agree that illegal immigrants and any of their children born in the US are to be deported as foreign citizens, because illegal immigration is breaking the law.  These immigrants/aliens never officially renounced their non-US citizenship and never applied to become a naturalized US citizen.

i've seen the arguments like "the kid didn't choose where they were born or who their parents are," "they lived their whole lives here and don't speak the language or know anyone in their parent's home country,", and so on. 

The question is, suppose a mother arrives with a child born in Mexico 2 days prior.  Do not the same arguments apply to that child?  Why would we give citizenship to a child born on US soil and not to a 2-day-old child who will experience the exact same situation as the first one?

There's no logic in the law.  That's one reason our immigration process is so screwed up and illegals coming to the US can manipulate the system to remain here without ever needing to go through the immigration process.

i've seen the arguments like "the kid didn't choose where they were born or who their parents are," "they lived their whole lives here and don't speak the language or know anyone in their parent's home country,", and so on. 

The question is, suppose a pother arrives with a child born in Mexico 2 days prior.  Do not the same arguments apply to that child?  Why would we give citizenship to a child born on US soil and not to a 2-day-old child who will experience the exact same situation as the first one?

There's no logic in the law.  That's one reason our immigration process is so screwed up and illegals coming to the US can manipulate the system to remain here without ever needing to go through the immigration process.

Yup, illegals know how the system works and are taking advantage of it.  If the DACA person doesn't speak their parents language, then too bad. It's their parents fault for coming here illegally.  The only reason for DACA is to get voters for the DNC who support illegals.

Please show where Trump said he was suspending a Constitutional Amendment.

You're creating a straw argument again.

Roe v. Wade did not require a new amendment to give women the "right" to have an abortion.  The Supreme Court simply interpreted the right to privacy in a new way -- sort of a Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon way.  If the relationship between a doctor and patient is privileged, and a doctor is performing abortions, then the doctor also has a right to privacy which prevents the government from intervening in their practice.  Most people got it wrong when they said Roe was about protecting the pregnant mother's rights.  It was really about protecting the doctors.  There is no other right that is afforded to a third party this way, but that's how the Liberal majority court decided.  It  took decades to correct that legal blunder.

Something similar is needed for birthright citizenship.  The amendment was created after the Civil War to ensure African slaves born in the US of foreign parents would be granted citizenship.  The 14th amendment is all about post civil war issues including citizenship, due process, equal protection, privileges or immunities, rebellion and other crime(s), etc.  All of these were post civil war issues that needed to be addressed federally so the Southern states could not infringe on the rights of freed slaves and the North could not infringe on the rights of former Confederate soldiers.

There's no need to repeal or "suspend" the amendment if the Supreme Court rules that, based on the plain language and original intent of the law, we've been doing it wrong all these decades.

Nice try. Roe V Wade was crafted out of other bits but the 14th amendment directly address this.

I am not opposed to ending birthright citizenship but it should be done clearly and properly by amending the constitution rather than imaginative reinterpretation like how the democrats try to do.

The part up for interpretation is jurisdiction.  Children born in the US by foreign dignitaries dont get citizenship because dignitaries aren't affected by US laws.  Same could be interpreted for illegal immigrants crossing the border.  I don't think it can be applied to persons on current visas tho.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens...."

Foreign dignitaries as well as foreign armies.

Someone here legally or illegally still fall under the jurisdiction of the USA since they can be held accountable to the laws of the country.

Basically I would argue this is a loophole in the text that needs to be fixed by changing the amendment, not "reinterpretation".  If you gave illegal aliens immunity then you could say they don't fall under the jurisdiction but that would create other, worse problems.

Nice try. Roe V Wade was crafted out of other bits but the 14th amendment directly address this.

I am not opposed to ending birthright citizenship but it should be done clearly and properly by amending the constitution rather than imaginative reinterpretation like how the democrats try to do.

It was a nice try because it's 100% on point.  SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the law.  If they interpret the 14th amendment in Trump's favor, there's no need to amend the Constitution.

Stop being obtuse.

If SCOTUS decides we've implemented the 14th incorrectly all these years, there is no need for a new amendment or repeal of the existing 14th.

Do you need a new law to replace an ambiguous one if case law provides the proper interpretation?  Same concept.

Realistically this wont go to SCOTUS and he'd probably lose there.

Trumps going to finish the wall, kick out the criminals, hold migrants in Canada and Mexico, and lock down the border.  He'll put more scrutiny on visas and pass laws to grant amnesty to the otherwise law abiding who are already here.

The deport them all is just leverage like leaving NATO to put attention on the issue and give moderate democrats an excuse to support his agena.

Realistically this wont go to SCOTUS and he'd probably lose there.

Trumps going to finish the wall, kick out the criminals, hold migrants in Canada and Mexico, and lock down the border.  He'll put more scrutiny on visas and pass laws to grant amnesty to the otherwise law abiding who are already here.

The deport them all is just leverage like leaving NATO to put attention on the issue and give moderate democrats an excuse to support his agena.

Realistically, if we are serious about reducing the mass of illegals coming into the country by any significant amount, we need to stop attracting them.  A pregnant woman can offer her child something she may never be able to obtain herself -- US citizenship.  That's a huge carrot for anyone intent on making a better life for her children.

So, Trump should do all the things you said, but I think he's actually going to instruct his immigration offices to stop processing children born in the US of foreign parents for automatic citizenship.  Of course, 100 groups will be waiting to challenge the XO/XA in court, which means if/when he loses that case, it will at some point be appealed to SCOTUS.

He promised this among his top priorities on day one.  So, far, he's made so many day-one promises, it's going to take an entire week!  If he's being honest, though, most of this stuff will be drafted for signature before he takes the oath.  An hour of signing orders and policies, and it's Miller time -- or whatever teetotaler beverage he enjoys!

Utterly 0 chance this works.   

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/


If somehow it does work goodbye second ammendment.   When we start voiding constitutional rights they all go away. 

Funny how human nature works. Think about this when you are competing with these "birthright" babies for housing, food, and other opportunities.

It was a nice try because it's 100% on point.  SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the law.  If they interpret the 14th amendment in Trump's favor, there's no need to amend the Constitution.

Stop being obtuse.

If SCOTUS decides we've implemented the 14th incorrectly all these years, there is no need for a new amendment or repeal of the existing 14th.

Do you need a new law to replace an ambiguous one if case law provides the proper interpretation?  Same concept.

Nice backpedaling. Whenever it comes to guns you bemoan the courts for using interpretation to make up gun control law (legislating from the bench) and would have no problem calling out the courts for not upholding the 2nd amendment but now when it comes to something you want you have no problems with the SCOTUS using interpretation to get what you want. Go one way or go the other, I don't care, just be consistent.

Obviously if the SCOTUS decides something a certain way it is going to be that way. Thanks captain obvious.