He's talked about it before, in his first term and on the campaign trail for his first term.
It rests on the argument that the 14th amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. "Birthright citizenship" completely ignores that "subject to jurisdiction" part. But if you apply that portion, which is clearly written in the amendment, then someone born here who then flies back to China (or wherever) at age 1 would obviously not be subject to the jurisdiction of US and state laws, and wouldn't be a citizen.
So it's basically a reinterpretation of existing law.
I don’t think citizenship should be granted freely. When the child, who was born and raised in this country, of the legal resident reaches 18, he/she should be able to choose if he/she wants to become a citizen of this country or that of his parents. Then that adult child if he/she chooses can then go through the naturalization process like everyone else.
at some point our ancestors came here and all their descendants were citizens without a bunch of rigamaroll. we just need to end the abuse of birth tourism and illegal's anchor babies
I definitely agree we should put an end to birth tourism and illegal anchor babies. Although, I don’t think green card holders and permanent legal residents should be allowed the right to anchor babies either.
If green card holders and permanent legal residents want their children to become legal citizens, then they, themselves, should go through the Naturalization process, pledging allegiance to this country; otherwise they would be raising a child whose parents allegiance is to another country.
That’s just my personal opinion.
I do believe that there are plenty of people, although they are from another country, in this country who love this country just as much as most citizens do. There are also, unfortunately, citizens of this country who do not love this country at all or not as much as those who are not citizens, but reside here legally, yet love this country with all their heart.
You’d have to go against a precedent set in the 19th century, for an amendment made to help guarantee citizenship for freed slaves after the South failed to block the Civil Rights Act and Johnson had to step in and veto it. At this point, recodifying the jurisdiction phrase could very well require a new amendment, since the current Court is pretty divided on revisiting precedent from that long ago. And a new amendment would be a real long shot. Maybe possible depending on how next mid-terms go? But America seems stuck in a back-and-forth singsong dance when it comes to who wins Presidential elections and who does well in the following midterms.
Also, the example highlighted here about someone being born here and then moving to the country of their parents right after is just not common enough to swing electoral college votes, and a requirement for parents to have been citizens is not at all interpretable from the 14th - you would need a constitutional amendment. And it would need to address all sorts of edge cases like what happens when one parent is waiting on their green card but the other parent is a citizen with citizenship going back multiple generations.
Even though it’s a long shot, an amendment is more likely than movement purely from the courts, especially if what you want to stop is foreigners birthing children on American soil, those children spending all their lives in America, subject to her jurisdictions, and enjoying citizenship.
I have flown to Asia many times over the years and EVERY flight has had MANY new-born (days old) babies with their parents flying home. If that is happening on nearly every flight, dozens or more flights a day for decades......
Then it still doesn’t equal even a single electoral vote’s worth unless they are all eventually registered to vote in the same state, in which case it would most likely be through a major population center on a seaboard that was already going to go reliably blue. Even on a red wave like this, there is a limit to the amount of political capital you can spend, and like others and I have said, SCOTUS is not likely to go back on a precedent set in the 19th century. So the only way to snag this loophole is through a constitutional amendment, which would be a longshot no matter the issue due to how divided the country is on literally everything, and there’s gotta be something way more impactful you can use with your one Hail Mary shot than stopping New York or Seattle from becoming bluer than it already is.
I think you’re misunderstanding. The point of the jurisdiction clause was to allow citizenship to slaves who were not born in the United States, but born into the Confederated States, a short-lived but separate nation. Because during the Northern-inflicted horrors of Reconstruction, Southern states were using any loophole or gotcha possible to maintain the social order of slavery, even if the economic benefits were no longer possible.
It had less to do with being born of slaves, and more an awkward work-around to make sure anyone born on US territory, even if it was briefly not US territory at the time, would not be denied citizenship. You gotta remember, this was the awkward middle point between not needing a large influx of cheap immigrant labor due to having a forced labor population maintained by human trafficking, and now needing cheap immigrant labor to maintain a positive capital flow while building infrastructure across the newly conquered West.
And while on paper it seems like it would be easier to just say “born within the borders” or something like that, the hundreds of sovereign micronations within America’s borders made that legally impossible, due to the already oft-violated Article VI. So instead we got the “subject to her jurisdiction” clause, which was reinterpreted about 30 years later specifically to allow American-born children of diplomats long-term stationed here to be citizens, as the economic necessities caused by no longer having slave labor meant we had to break from our long-term stance of Isolationism and embrace foreign expansionism. And this was a hundred years before the Supreme Court started feeing real comfortable with stipulating “This is only for this one specific case and cannot be taken as precedent going forward.”
He's talked about it before, in his first term and on the campaign trail for his first term.
It rests on the argument that the 14th amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. "Birthright citizenship" completely ignores that "subject to jurisdiction" part. But if you apply that portion, which is clearly written in the amendment, then someone born here who then flies back to China (or wherever) at age 1 would obviously not be subject to the jurisdiction of US and state laws, and wouldn't be a citizen.
So it's basically a reinterpretation of existing law.
parents should at least be legal residents
Residents don’t hold allegiance to this country. Citizens do.
People with green cards/ permanent legal residents seems like a fair trade-off to get rid of the birth tourism and anchor babies of illegals.
I don’t think citizenship should be granted freely. When the child, who was born and raised in this country, of the legal resident reaches 18, he/she should be able to choose if he/she wants to become a citizen of this country or that of his parents. Then that adult child if he/she chooses can then go through the naturalization process like everyone else.
at some point our ancestors came here and all their descendants were citizens without a bunch of rigamaroll. we just need to end the abuse of birth tourism and illegal's anchor babies
I definitely agree we should put an end to birth tourism and illegal anchor babies. Although, I don’t think green card holders and permanent legal residents should be allowed the right to anchor babies either.
If green card holders and permanent legal residents want their children to become legal citizens, then they, themselves, should go through the Naturalization process, pledging allegiance to this country; otherwise they would be raising a child whose parents allegiance is to another country.
That’s just my personal opinion.
I do believe that there are plenty of people, although they are from another country, in this country who love this country just as much as most citizens do. There are also, unfortunately, citizens of this country who do not love this country at all or not as much as those who are not citizens, but reside here legally, yet love this country with all their heart.
I disagree. It is not that hard to become a resident in a country, it is more difficult to become a citizen.
MAYBE a certain time limit on how long that person has been a resident. MAYBE.
Spawn dropped on USA soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the nation of their parent’s citizenship.
It really is as simple as that.
Just because it’s been interpreted incorrectly for so many years doesn’t invalidate it.
Agreed.
Some countries don’t have extradition agreement with the US, hence the criminals (e.g. with dual citizenship) are not subject to jurisdiction….
Birthright citizenship does not exist in the Constitution.
It was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air, just like the fake abortion right.
It was a campaign promise
Make it retroactive too.
What's the deal with Matt Wallace. He seems to be kind of a sensationalist?
The 14th amendment gives him, or any president, the authority to do this.
Here's a good thread explaining why birthright citizenship is a fabrication, not law.
Read the posts a couple above this one:
https://x.com/GregLoc40342535/status/1819850792003858515
You’d have to go against a precedent set in the 19th century, for an amendment made to help guarantee citizenship for freed slaves after the South failed to block the Civil Rights Act and Johnson had to step in and veto it. At this point, recodifying the jurisdiction phrase could very well require a new amendment, since the current Court is pretty divided on revisiting precedent from that long ago. And a new amendment would be a real long shot. Maybe possible depending on how next mid-terms go? But America seems stuck in a back-and-forth singsong dance when it comes to who wins Presidential elections and who does well in the following midterms.
Also, the example highlighted here about someone being born here and then moving to the country of their parents right after is just not common enough to swing electoral college votes, and a requirement for parents to have been citizens is not at all interpretable from the 14th - you would need a constitutional amendment. And it would need to address all sorts of edge cases like what happens when one parent is waiting on their green card but the other parent is a citizen with citizenship going back multiple generations.
Even though it’s a long shot, an amendment is more likely than movement purely from the courts, especially if what you want to stop is foreigners birthing children on American soil, those children spending all their lives in America, subject to her jurisdictions, and enjoying citizenship.
I have flown to Asia many times over the years and EVERY flight has had MANY new-born (days old) babies with their parents flying home. If that is happening on nearly every flight, dozens or more flights a day for decades......
Then it still doesn’t equal even a single electoral vote’s worth unless they are all eventually registered to vote in the same state, in which case it would most likely be through a major population center on a seaboard that was already going to go reliably blue. Even on a red wave like this, there is a limit to the amount of political capital you can spend, and like others and I have said, SCOTUS is not likely to go back on a precedent set in the 19th century. So the only way to snag this loophole is through a constitutional amendment, which would be a longshot no matter the issue due to how divided the country is on literally everything, and there’s gotta be something way more impactful you can use with your one Hail Mary shot than stopping New York or Seattle from becoming bluer than it already is.
Okokok…any children born of slaves in the USA can apply for citizenship.
I think you’re misunderstanding. The point of the jurisdiction clause was to allow citizenship to slaves who were not born in the United States, but born into the Confederated States, a short-lived but separate nation. Because during the Northern-inflicted horrors of Reconstruction, Southern states were using any loophole or gotcha possible to maintain the social order of slavery, even if the economic benefits were no longer possible.
It had less to do with being born of slaves, and more an awkward work-around to make sure anyone born on US territory, even if it was briefly not US territory at the time, would not be denied citizenship. You gotta remember, this was the awkward middle point between not needing a large influx of cheap immigrant labor due to having a forced labor population maintained by human trafficking, and now needing cheap immigrant labor to maintain a positive capital flow while building infrastructure across the newly conquered West.
And while on paper it seems like it would be easier to just say “born within the borders” or something like that, the hundreds of sovereign micronations within America’s borders made that legally impossible, due to the already oft-violated Article VI. So instead we got the “subject to her jurisdiction” clause, which was reinterpreted about 30 years later specifically to allow American-born children of diplomats long-term stationed here to be citizens, as the economic necessities caused by no longer having slave labor meant we had to break from our long-term stance of Isolationism and embrace foreign expansionism. And this was a hundred years before the Supreme Court started feeing real comfortable with stipulating “This is only for this one specific case and cannot be taken as precedent going forward.”
History is awkward and fascinating!
Agreed. Such a long standing court precedence would not be an easy fix and the current court is unlikely to redefine.
There goes the blue states.
It's who counts the votes that matters.
I don't have an X account and saw this on Gab. Is this legit?
We can only hope. We need him and Vivek challenging the status of children born from illegals and all the chain migration. Get them all out!
Count on it.
Whatever is decided, wouldn't hurt to require a DNA test to ensure the parents are who they are asserted to be.
Yes and we are extremely happy... MAGA....
Thank God about time at lease the “DEAD” can still VOTE. (Satire)
Ok? And? Is poster for or against that?
Hope so.
about time