Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

No, it won't end. Parts of it should end because it's not aligned with the original intent.
The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States. You don't get to claim 'original intent' by anyone. NOTHING in the Constitution confers citizenship on illegal aliens or their offspring.
 
And nothing in the constitution is above the Supreme court interpreting it as they see fit.
WRONG! The Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY over the Constitution. They are REQUIRED to conform to the Constitution, just as any other branch of the federal government!
My guess is this shit is over very soon.

The question that you people seem unable or unwilling to answer I will ask again. If there is an answer in it lies the insanity of the left.

Why is having open borders and birth right citizenship so important to you?
Good question!
 
The Constitution of the United States is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States. You don't get to claim 'original intent' by anyone. NOTHING in the Constitution confers citizenship on illegal aliens or their offspring.
What Does the constitution say about people here illegally as it relates to birthright citizenship?
 
What Does the constitution say about people here illegally as it relates to birthright citizenship?
Opinion from NYT ...

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The drafters of the clause modeled it off of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.

The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens."
 
Back
Top