True, that includes the United States and one other first world country (Canada). Obviously, for geographical reasons, Canada doesn't have the issue the United States has with birthright citizenship.
Birthright citizenship is the primary incentive for criminals to commit criminal acts and use up taxpayer resources for a problem we shouldn't be having. It will be gone eventually and rightfully so. I would also deport hateful bigots like the thread starter who hurl racial slurs at white people for creating a lawful society he reaps the benefits from. That baseless hate is not welcome in first world societies and creates barriers to progress.
I don't have a problem with amending the Constitution to change birthright citizenship if that is the will of the people.
Most public policy these days is disconnected from the will of the people though. I personally would oppose this sort of amendment, but like you, if the majority held an opposing view, I'd accept it in this case. It changes our identity, but not a moral issue ultimately.
I can understand an argument that it's illogical to have immigration laws and then grant citizenship to children of people who circumvent those laws. I certainly reject it as a crisis that needs to be addressed. Regardless, the Constitution establishes it. If people want to get rid of it, go through the proper channels.
one would hope that Trump, when watching Fox & Friend, would heed the civic lesson by his pal Judge Andrew Napolitano Judge Napolitano Teaches Basic Civics to Dumb, Dumber & Dumberer Though the Fox & Friends hosts appeared eager to find a method to carry out Trump’s proposed policy, Napolitano dashed their hopes with a sit-down worthy of a 7th-grade classroom. “Look, the president can’t change the plain meaning of the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” Napolitano said. Trump’s intentions were revealed in a clip from the new Axios on HBO released this week. In it, he said he plans to sign an order that will terminate the legal right of babies born on U.S. soil to have citizenship if the parent is an undocumented immigrant or non-citizen. Napolitano explained that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live.” “Congress can’t change the Constitution,” Napolitano made clear to the hosts. “If the president wants legislation that says, for example, that Congress declares that birthright citizenship no longer exists, that legislation would be just as unconstitutional as a presidential executive order declaring that birthright citizenship doesn’t exist.” Doocy interjected: “But it’s that word ‘jurisdiction’—” Napolitano continued: “Are illegals subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Of course they are. They commit a crime, they get prosecuted. They get in an automobile accident, they can sue. They have basic human rights. They can’t vote, they can’t run for office, but they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “It requires a change to the Constitution, which is very difficult, very cumbersome and, in my opinion, will not happen. It would require a vote of two-thirds in both houses of Congress—that’s not going to happen now—and ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures.” Kilmeade, apparently hoping to still find a way around that lengthy process, asked, “How about legislation driven from [Sen.] Lindsey Graham that passes the House and Senate, that makes the court decide on this and have an honest debate about it?” Napolitano replied: “The courts can’t just decide something. They have to have a real case or controversy in front of them.” “When the Supreme Court has looked at this, candidly, it’s gone both ways. But the more recent cases have said, whoever is born here is an American citizen,” he added. The judge also noted that if President Trump was capable of such an executive order, other presidents would have been, too, including Barack Obama. “Presidents can’t do that,” he said. “I think the president knows that. I believe he has generated this because he wants the debate, he thinks this debate will help Republicans in the five days remaining before the midterms. I don’t think he seriously thinks he can change the Constitution with an executive order.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge...sic-civics-to-desperate-fox-and-friends-hosts
Just an FYI, I am not endorsing what this tweet says. This is for informational purposes for a differing opinion. It goes back to the commentary by the authors of the amendment at the time it was passed. I have not made up my mind yet so I will refrain from adding my own commentary but will say I would hate for anything to be done via executive order..
The exception is clearly stated via the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" exception specifically in relation to children born to ambassadors, foreign dignitarites, etc.
This would be a fantastic opportunity for both sides to actually work with each other (wouldn’t that be crazy?). End birthright to undocumented families but offer a path to citizenship for those who are already here.
...ehhhh... ...I dunno... ...that sounds a little too much like "compromise"...even to liberally sensitive ears like mine... Compromise is for the weak. Fight to the death. Victory is life.
I am not arguing for either side at the moment but it could be argued that a person who comes here illegally is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" since they are breaking laws just by being here. I am not personally making that argument at the moment. Better legal minds than myself will make it and I will pick a side when I hear the arguments. I am simply saying that is likely the argument that will be coming and it will likely be decided at the SCOTUS.
Well no. Their parents are breaking a law by being here. The child born on US territory did not break any law. So even if you were to read 'subject to the jurisdiction' that way (I wouldn't), it would apply to the parent and not the child.
As I stated earlier, I am not picking sides now so I am not going to argue either way at the moment. I was simply pointing out the other sides argument. I do believe this will one day be argued before the SCOTUS for clarification. Once those arguments are framed by better legal minds than my own, I will form an opinion.
