Birthright Citizenship?

If Trump wins here, it will be his biggest legacy. A fundamental change to America.

Given that the court granted the petition of Wong Kim Ark, that he was a citizen regardless of the status of his parents, I wouldn't count on Trump winning this battle.

The heart of the matter is whether or not a person born to parents who are not legally residents of these United States is subject to the authority of a foreign power. We've already established through our jurisprudence that anyone residing within any of the States is protected by due process of the laws. Federal agents can't, for instance, immediately take an illegal immigrant down to the border and toss them out. Before that individual may be deported, there has to be an order of deportation issued by a federal court, or a request for extradition by a foreign authority under a recognized treaty. The federal agents may lawfully detain the person for violation of federal laws, but they cannot deport them absent an order from the court, they have the protection of the laws governing anyone who is within the boundaries of these United States regardless of whether they have political, or civil, allegiance to these United States.

The executive order faces an uphill battle it is unlikely to win IMNTBHO . . . not that I don't agree with the reasoning behind the executive order, but simply because this isn't how the amendment has been interpreted for the majority of, if not all of, the time that has passed since the passage of the 14th Amendment.

AP is reporting that a federal judge in Washington has said that the order is "blatantly unconstitutional" and issued a temporary restraining order to prevent it from taking effect.

I don’t think there’s any chance of this happening but this should be attempted anyway. We need to put our elected representatives on the record so the people can decide who to keep and who should be booted in a primary.

I wish there were some Democrats left who could give us a logical reason why birthright citizenship should remain, especially since we are the only country on the planet that has the policy.

Except we're not the only one . . . we're one of about 30 including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. Most of the Americas (North and South) decide citizenship by jus soli.

There is just something wrong with foreign nationals coming to the US in the 9th month, having a child, getting citizenship and a Social Security number and then flying home. Then later the child returns with the parents, and the parents get green cards to take care of their US born child.

I’m not disagreeing with that sentiment, I don’t necessarily agree that the decision made by SCOTUS at the turn of the last century precluded citizenship being decided by a combination of nationality and place of birth, but I am saying that jus soli being adopted as the default position for the last 150+ years is going to be a significant legal hurdle to clear even given the current members of SCOTUS.

You think the Dobbs and McDonald decisions caused an uproar? Overturning 150+ years of precedent would be cataclysmic, the justices would choose protecting SCOTUS from legislative mischief over constitutional principles just like the “switch in time that saved nine” decision on the constitutionality of Social Security was decided to protect SCOTUS.

PrintSmith wrote: Except we're not the only one . . . we're one of about 30 including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. Most of the Americas (North and South) decide citizenship by jus soli.

You’re right, I stand corrected. However, it’s all the countries the left wants us to be like that I was thinking of. They want us to be like European countries, yet those countries don’t have birthright citizenship. Canada isn’t a place people are trying to break into because of opportunities and government handouts… certainly not for their quality healthcare.

Amendments are always being re defined. Religious freedom? Can Sikhs wear their turbans and long hair in the military?
Do employers have to work with Islamic employees on prayer times?,

Time to define if pregnant women arriving her to give birth confers citizenship? Does giving birth in America on a work visa count? It doesn't for embassy employees.

It is understood that an ambassador of a foreign nation is loyal to the nation they serve as an ambassador, not the one they are living in during the term of their service to their sovereign.

The line is a little less clear when someone has fled their native land to establish a new life in a new land. By that action they can reasonably be said to have abandoned the protection of the sovereign power in their native land in favor of being subjected to the sovereign power in the new land. Mexico, Cuba, Somalia, Venezuela, aren't looking to colonize these United States, the people who flee those lands are fleeing the protection of the sovereign powers that exist there. Where ever they wind up during their flight, they don't want, don't seek, the protection of their native land, they have abandoned it, they have divorced themselves from it.

Now, the same can't be said for a migrant who hopscotches back and forth across the border without ever seeking to establish a permanent domicile in the new land, and it can fairly be argued that they are still seeking the protection of the sovereign power in their native land by such actions. Say, Elton John as an example. He maintains domiciles in a lot of countries, but his primary allegiance is to Great Britain, not these United States. He likes the States, but his home, his heart, is in England. The same is true for someone who comes here to further the interests of their native land, like a diplomat or an embassy employee, and not the interests of the land they have migrated to.