4 ms·
Birthright citizenship was never enacted into law. It was a policy change by the State Department early in the 20th century. Since Trump controls the State De
by laughing_man 1y ago
Birthright citizenship was never enacted into law. It was a policy change by the State Department early in the 20th century. Since Trump controls the State Dept, has the power to make the change - Congress needs to deal with this.
- tzs 1y agoIt's been enacted into law at least 3 times, for difference classes of people. 1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which covers everyone born here who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US. 2. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which extended it to Native Americans who were living under tribal sovereignty. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 extended it to children of US citizens who are born outside the US.
- laughing_man 1y agoWell, okay, but none of this applies to the children of illegal immigrants.
- tzs 1y agoMost illegal immigrants are not foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US.
- fzeroracer 1y agoIf you believe illegal immigrants can commit crimes, be jailed and be deported then by definition they are subject to US jurisdiction. There is literally no other position to hold here outside of outright hypocrisy.
- const_cast 1y agoYes, yes it does. Explicitly and without debate.
- benlivengood 1y agohttps://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
- laughing_man 1y ago[flagged]
- lelandbatey 1y ago> 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. Yes. It's in the constitution. Says it right there. Please explain how all our eyes deceive us.
- laughing_man 1y agoYou're relying on a 21st century layman's interpretation of legal language written in the 19th century. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, in broad strokes, people who are here legally.
- lelandbatey 1y agoIt does not mean that in broad strokes. It very specifically was meant to exclude folks such as children of diplomats, as decided in United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 A great summary: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people: 1.Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law 2.Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and 3. Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- verteu 1y agoThis is false, per US v. Wong Kim Ark, and the attempt to reinterpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was shot down by courts in Plyler v Doe.