Should we retain birthright citizenship as is or change it?

Irrelevant. Answer my question.

I saw you state your vote, but not actually explain the logical basis for it.

 

They're excluded for diplomatic considerations. It's the same reason an embassy's grounds are technically foreign territory, and why U.S. laws are generally unenforceable against diplomats. The whole "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" thing.

 

What I 'get', Jake, is that I want immigration and/or asylum to be legal -- from start to finish, or, for it not to occur AT ALL. If you want that, too, then we are in sufficient agreement on the topic.

But, if you don't want immigration laws, as well as 'asylum' law, to be enforced, then that is where we 'part ways'. It's really no more complicated than that....

 

The straw man argument of a777 deals with First Peoples and citizenship, not the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868, thirty years before Wong. Those natives then were not then nor their children subject to US jurisdiction. a777 needs to do some reading on Constitutional law.

What Pollycy wants is what he wants. And, once again, he deliberately distorts what I want for immigration law. Pollycy, you don't have a clue, do you?

 

Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

 

Yay. A guy who was responsible for the most narrow interpretations of the Amendment. And irrelevant after Wong Kim Ark settled the matter.

 

Mr. Justice Miller was wrong. I had to refrain mightily from going racial in this post.

 

Narrow to the extent that it's the only correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Every other interpretation is broadly misinterpreted.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling never settled anything, it only muddied the waters. I suspect there is good chance the current SCOTUS will eventually rule correctly on the matter, restoring the proper interpretation of birthright citizenship, in the mode of Justice Miller. The sovereignty of our nation depends upon it.

 

No, Miller's is the one sure wrong interp of the Amendment, and it is irrelevant after Wong Ark Kim settled the matter.

The current SCOTUS would uphold Wong Ark kim 8-1 or 7-2 at the very least.

 

Change it and eliminate for all except those here legally
​

That wouldn't be a change, just adherence to the law as it stands.

 

We don't need it, all blacks can vote now and are Americans.
except those who came in illegally or came from an illegal.
Being a product of a crime of conspiracy should never make anyoen a citizen.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, it was bureaucrats at the State Department who unilaterally decided to reinterpret the 13th Amendment which had granted citizenship to former slaves and their children. If the original intent had been to grant citizenship to everyone born within US borders, there would have been no need to pass the Snyder Act in 1924 to grant citizenship to all the Native Americans.

So there was no law, no court ruling, no executive order, just some bureaucrat who made a decision that if a foreigner spawns on our soil the children are granted citizenship. And now it seems to be engraved in stone. And we have created a new industry of Russian and Chinese and Central Americans doing tourism birthing.

 

This " If the original intent had been to grant citizenship to everyone born within US borders, there would have been no need to pass the Snyder Act in 1924 to grant citizenship to all the Native Americans" is merely an opinion not a fact.