Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_EAllusion]

The Synder Act concerns the status of tribal nations. The question of citizenship of their members revolves around the status of the tribes because it is and was understood those under US jurisdiction are citizens. What caused this “confusion” is that tribal nations should be independent countries, but we really wanted to take their land. So their status as quasi-sovereign domestic dependent nations evolved in law.

[_EAllusion]

He can issue an order for the federal takeover of the New York Times. That would be consistent with his desires and his bases, but it would still be illegal. If people who want this egregiously misread the Constitution to justify it, that doesn’t make it legitimate debate with unclear resolution until the courts step in. It’s plainly illegal.

Are you deliberately omitting the fact the 14th amendment dealt with the issue of freed slaves? You probably are. That's how you operate. Hence the subsequent court cases surrounding the Chinese and Native Americans.

- Doc

Well, you could read this thread where I and others link both the actual historical record and a basic civics refresher on the subject. Or you could spout ignorant talking points of those seeking to misinform people on the issue. Your choice, I guess.

The 14th amendment was understood by its author, proponents, and opponents as codifying citizenship of those born in the US, children of diplomats excepted, and was not narrowly just referencing the status of freed slaves. Its *critics* argued specifically that the amendment would make citizens out of the children of undesirable immigrant groups to which its advocates retorted, “Yeah. Exactly.”

[_Res Ipsa]

Uh, Doc. The 13th amendment freed the slaves. The 14th added other stuff, including specifically guaranteeing birthright citizenship for those subject to US jurisdiction.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Uh, Doc. The 13th amendment freed the slaves. The 14th added other stuff, including specifically guaranteeing birthright citizenship for those subject to US jurisdiction.

Yeah, I know. I'm fairly certain after feverishly googling the 14th amendment today, and specifically a bit over the last hour, the 14th amendment was primarily concerned with freed slaves and their birthright claims.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Uh, Doc. The 13th amendment freed the slaves. The 14th added other stuff, including specifically guaranteeing birthright citizenship for those subject to US jurisdiction.

Yeah, I know. I'm fairly certain after feverishly googling the 14th amendment today, and specifically a bit over the last hour, the 14th amendment was primarily concerned with freed slaves and their birthright claims.

- Doc

Did you read the history where they specifically discussed the Chinese, the Natives, The mentally ill, etc.? Although birthright citizenship had a long history, it had never been mentioned in the Constitution. They worded the amendment the way they did to make it apply broadly with a few specifically discussed exceptions. Even children whose parents were not allowed to naturalize still had a right to birthright citizenship. The fact that freeing the slaves precipitated the need for the amendment doesn’t mean that freed slaves were there only concern.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The fact that freeing the slaves precipitated the need for the amendment doesn’t mean that freed slaves were there only concern.

Sure. And that's why those issues were brought up later, no?

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

The fact that freeing the slaves precipitated the need for the amendment doesn’t mean that freed slaves were there only concern.

Sure. And that's why those issues were brought up later, no?

- Doc

No, they were discussed at the time the amendment was drafted. The requirement of being subject to jurisdiction was specifically chosen to exclude the three groups: diplomats, military occupiers, and natives.

[_EAllusion]

The fact that freeing the slaves precipitated the need for the amendment doesn’t mean that freed slaves were there only concern.

Sure. And that's why those issues were brought up later, no?

- Doc

No. They were brought up at the time the amendment was written and passed. You are confusing future rulings as a point of clarification when they are just correct interpretation of the Constitution.

This is such a straightforward issue that there’s no mainstream form of jurisprudence that doesn’t yield the same result.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm. I guess we'll have to see what the executive order entails next.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

No, they were discussed at the time the amendment was drafted. The requirement of being subject to jurisdiction was specifically chosen to exclude the three groups: diplomats, military occupiers, and natives.

Of course this is not true, but let us pretend it is and then season it with the reality that even by the time USA vs Wong was decided, there wasn't such a thing as an illegal immigrant ( early 20th century).
But please, tell us how the authors of the 14th intended to include illegal immigrants when they didn't exist yet....we can wait for you to gather your thoughts...