That was dumb. Now it will goto SC and affirm it.

FFS Lumpers hold it together.

Just one flagrant example:
www.justice.gov
#11 | POSTED BY MSGT A

There's other less draconian ways to fix this issue, I wonder sometimes if this is Trumps way of negotiating.

The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the U.S., and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

Well its somewhat up in the air given the wording. It doesn't directly/explicitily say "guarantee citizenship to people born in the US".

and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.

That doesn't mean anything, the constitution changed to end slavery. The constitution is a living document.

#26 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

To be clear this EO is a clear violation of the Constitution, hence my response.
#24 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER A

No its not, read the history of the 14th amendment, and relate that to the current SC.

Its possible you don't understand the argument, do you actually imagine Trump just signed it thinking "NAH no one will contest it"?

The issue is the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", now some people believe its "jus soli".

Reading back on the reason for the act, and its purpose, it was to allow Black slaves to become citizens, and also keep non-citizens from becoming citizens. Remember America is a racist country.

So in the case of lets say an India parent have a child on US. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would imply that the child was not subject to ANY other jurisdiction. Well it would appear that the child is under India's jurisdiction due to the laws "Indian Citizenship".

According to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1956 (as amended in 1992 and recently in 2004) (hereinafter the "Indian Citizenship Act"), a person born outside India on or after December 10, 1992 shall be a citizen of India by descent if either of his/her parents is a citizen of India at the time of his/her birth.

Ergo the child is an Indian citizen and not a US citizen because the child isn't "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof"

For reference another example where the "jus soli" and "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof" don't fully align easily.

Some one in the diplomatic corp is not "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof" even though on the "soli".

ergo "jus soli" is an incorrect interpretation of "subject to the "complete" jurisdiction thereof".

From my reading, and the example above, there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, and a more complete allegiance-obliging jurisdiction of citizenship.

It is HIGHLY likely that the SC will accept much of -------- arguments and birthright citizenship will be changed.

Given my reading this is highly probable.

You weren't so worried about the constitution when trump attempted a coup, or ran for office again after that.

Posted by SpeakSoftly

No one was really worried about the constitution then.

Only pant -------, attempt to use it as leverage in the place of an actual argument.

What will be the effect on the US economy when there is a shortage of workers entering the job market?

Higher wages!

Our populace is getting older and having fewer children (thank Dobbs for spurring that along).

You mean abortion, the African American population should be upset with the racist abortionist.

The recent history of the 14th amendment is that the 14th amendment can be completely ignored, as we ignored it when an insurrectionist was allowed on the ballot.
#49 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

What insurrectionist? Was it proven in a court of law, and not just your political opinion?

No RUSSIANS or FASCISTS were worried about the constitution in that moment. Everyone else was.
#48 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

No you weren't really worried. Go change your pants.

Incomplete answer.
Imagine 20 jobs and 10 workers.
How does that effect the economy?

Higher Wages, it also removes lots of BS work done by desk jockeys.

Stream lines systems, its all good for the economy and peoples work ethic.

Keep trying.

The U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign or dual citizens when they're on U.S. soil?

Again it depends upon the use of the word jurisdiction. For example there are certain situations the Federal government doesn't have jurisdiction.

In the case of the constitutions and it use as, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", implies "complete", and complete doesn't just mean "jus soli".

Take the India example, is a prefect example where the citizenship/loyalty jurisdiction of the child is under another sovereign nation.

#55 that is what it means

Why do you think they put it in the constitution, wouldn't be redundant?

Dual citizenship would require you to go through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen.

At least this is how I have read it described.

"born in the US is a citizen, and therefor subject to US jurisdiction"
~ Mad

Lets revisit the sentence: "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"

Rephrase using pseudo code.

IF Born & Naturalized in US AND subject to the jurisdiction of the US, THEN they are a citizens

The jurisdiction of the US, is in reference to citizenship or political loyalty of the new born.

If your statement was correct, and its ONLY "jus soli" there's no need for the "subject to the jurisdiction" AS it already stated "in the United States".