I guess you have to ask yourself if you are an constituional absolutist or not. If you say “shall not be infringed” is abosolute 2A right, then you also have to say the birthright citizen is an absolute right. And that this cannot be a Christian country is also an absolute right. Can’t pick and choose. Shocking that only 5-4 justices could read the plain language of the 14th.
But given the current makeup of the court, I half expected more of an argument on public policy grounds - the current inteprepation of the 14th encourages illegal action (illegal immigration). But that would directly contradict the plain langage of the amendment.
Cuurent stats show children of illegal immigrants is less that 1% of births, so this is really yet another non-issue meant to stoke the racial bigotry of the republican base.
Weren’t you the one saying that they don’t put words into things like this by accident? And that all words have meaning?
So when a Chinese nationalist has a child on American soil, but then raises that child in China, as a Chinese citizen, they are no longer “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
When a child born to any person, regardless of where they’re from, comes into this world on American soil, do they start out by singing the Star spangled banner?
Nope, they’re crying.
So when that child is then raised to the cultural standard of the parents whom themselves are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because they’re not in the country legally, that makes the child the same.
No other country in the world allows the abuse of citizenship in the corrupt ways that it has become in America.
I guess you don’t know what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. It means the US government has the legal right to arrest, prosecute, and enforce its laws over you while you are on U.S. soil - you are “subject to its jurisdiction” of the laws of the US. Which they are against illegal immgrants the same as citizens. There are only 4 types of people this apples to - foreign diplomats, invading armies, children born on foreign vessels in US waters, and Native American Indians (later changed so native amerians are now US citizens).
if it was meant to apply only to freed slaves, then why doesn’t it say that? Amendments are not drafted by stupid people. It was meant to apply to everyone born in the US because that is what is says.
The Citizenship Clause broadly defines citizenship, superseding the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that Americans descended from African slaves could not become American citizens
OK, so why doesn’t the 14th simply state: “Freed slaves and their children are citizens of the united states”? They could have easily wrote it that way, but wanted it to be more expansive.
I get that you don’t like the holding, but the court has overwhelmingly bent over backward to favor Trump, so take a small loss to go with your huge wins so far.
Let me change the discussion a little and ask - why do you care so much about birthright citizenship? If this is a fraction of a pecent of all births in the US, why does it matter to you so much? How will it change your lives? Other than racial bigotry and the great replacement theory, what is the reason this is a top issue for you?
PS. Trump just lobbied FIFA to let an anchor baby play for the US tonight. Not only does trump want him on the US team, he wants to make sure he can play tonight. Make that make sense.
Kind of like when Bud Light was the sponsor for his wrestlemania event at the white house. He doesn’t give a sh%t about any of this. He knows immigrants, racisim, LGBTQ riles up his base, so he keeps pushing the false narrative. And you guys eat it up.
Regarding birth tourism, please explain how an infant’s automatic US citizenship fosters assimilation when the infant is then raised in the parent’s native country?
In the case of Communist China, this smacks of being nefarious at the very least.
