Dieter Schultz DaveMac
3 hours ago edited
Yeah, doesn't seem right, does it?
Months ago... before Trump took office, streiff had a great piece on the whole issue of birthright citizenship, it was well worth the read.
Honestly, I don't see how with what's he brought up and referenced in that article that anyone can rule that Trump's order is unconstitutional.
There were examples of the US government having to get positive affirmation via a law to grant citizenship to Indians, the author of the 14th clarifying its intentions, and the need to recognize the limits of the 'seminal' case with extending citizenship to legal permanent foreign residents, explicit denial of citizenship to babies of foreign diplomats... all feeding into the State Department making a unilateral decision to grant 'birthright citizenship' without any grant of legal authority.
The best I can tell is that these judges are ruling on the constitutionality of the issue based on the length of time that the State Department's unilateral decision has remained unchallenged and then finding it unconstitutional. //
Az-Mt
4 hours ago
“And subject to the jurisdiction” must mean someone approved by the govt to be here. Otherwise the words are simply meaningless and being ignored as inconvenient.
mopani Az-Mt
a few minutes ago
If you came here illegally you are excluding yourself from the jurisdiction of this nation. Therefore your children born here cannot be born citizens.
If you came here on a visa you are not subject to United States' jurisdiction either, your country of citizenship still has jurisdiction -- for conscription or draft, for example.
