3 ms·

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 wherei

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. The SCOTUS long ago held that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does mean something. For example it means that children of diplomats and tourists are not U.S. citizens because those diplomats and tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". There were debates in the Congress at the time about this. Whether that applies to other cases is yet to be seen. But let's not pretend like it's obviously clear that the 14A means birthright citizenship no matter the circumstances, or that there aren't controversies here for the courts to settle.

cryptonector 2y ago
For the downvoters, I was describing the setup, not what must be decided. This might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EvBv53XBNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EvBv53XBNg
- Gunnerhead 2y ago
  That was very interesting! Thanks for sharing!
bluecalm 2y ago
That's an argument Trump is betting on. I find it very disappointing that his opponents shout that it's clearly unconstitutional without addressing the point. Reasonable way to approach it would be to try to understand what the authors meant back then. Maybe they meant something completely different but why not address the obvious point the other side is making? I also think granting citizenship to children of people who are in a country illegally is silly and I find it very disappointing that Trump's opponents are so ideologically driven and frankly blind to popular sentiment that they can't even admit it. They make it sound like an attack on human rights or some racist policy while the whole thing is ridiculous. It's rewarding people for breaking the law - the worse kind of policy you can come up with. There is a reason very few countries have this kind of rule.

cryptonector 2y ago

For the downvoters, I was describing the setup, not what must be decided. This might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EvBv53XBNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EvBv53XBNg

Gunnerhead 2y ago
That was very interesting! Thanks for sharing!

bluecalm 2y ago

That's an argument Trump is betting on. I find it very disappointing that his opponents shout that it's clearly unconstitutional without addressing the point. Reasonable way to approach it would be to try to understand what the authors meant back then. Maybe they meant something completely different but why not address the obvious point the other side is making? I also think granting citizenship to children of people who are in a country illegally is silly and I find it very disappointing that Trump's opponents are so ideologically driven and frankly blind to popular sentiment that they can't even admit it. They make it sound like an attack on human rights or some racist policy while the whole thing is ridiculous. It's rewarding people for breaking the law - the worse kind of policy you can come up with. There is a reason very few countries have this kind of rule.