Day One

[ClydeR]

So they aren't going to argue that the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but that children born to people in the US illegally or legally but temporarily aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

[Suppressed Poet]

Yes, that is an exact and concise statement of what the Trump administration will argue.

Most, if not all, states have laws that require all parents, including those here illegally, to send their children to school. If they don't, the government can force the children to attend school. Both the parent and the child can face legal consequences for truancy. The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is true regardless of whether or not the child is born in the U.S. Being born in the U.S., though, affects citizenship.

A diplomat, on the other hand, is a different matter. As we all know from Law and Order, diplomats and their children are not subject to U.S. criminal laws. If a diplomat or the diplomat's child commits a crime in the U.S., they will have to be prosecuted, if at all, in their home country.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

[Furryrat]

A normal person who did that would feel shame.

[Tgo01]

As for Trump's lines, that doesn't matter. Once that child is born, he is subject to the laws and protections of the Jurisdiction in which he inhabits.

We'll find out in court. Either way Trump can at least say he did everything he could do to end birthright citizenship. He has no power in changing amendments.

The children are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Yes and that is what Trump is challenging.

Trump violated his oath -- on the same day he swore it -- by signing an executive order that he knew was unconstitutional. A normal person who did that would feel shame.

lol

After 4 years of Biden you fuckers have no leg to stand on in saying someone else should feel shame for what they do or believe in.

[Gelston]

We'll find out in court. Either way Trump can at least say he did everything he could do to end birthright citizenship. He has no power in changing amendments.

And I think that is all he set out to do. "Can't say I didn't try!"

[Suppressed Poet]

On the topic of the 14th Amendment…

(And this is just me talking out of my ass here and playing devil’s advocate.)

One of the important components that SCOTUS considers when interpreting any constitutional amendment is the language and intent for the time that it was written. The 14th Amendment was one of many Reconstruction Acts passed after the Civil War. Clearly this amendment was chiefly written to apply to former American slaves. Did the authors and those that ratified the 14th Amendment intend for this to grant automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (as in after it was written those that of their own free will crossed our border illegally and then had a child)? I’ll admit that I’m no legal scholar and my opinion means jack shit, but my suspicion would be no.

[~Rocktar~]

I mean, if said murder happens on the NYC subway…maybe…?

Cold, but funny.

I love all the constitutional scholars weighing in, I really do. Thing is, this has been a question for ages and heaps of extremely learned and wise constitutional scholars of standing have, through the years presented the same argument. I imagine that it has a more than 50/50 shot given the number of constitutional literalist/originalists on the court today. Of course, if it fails, are there enough states that are so pissed off with this crap that they would be willing to ratify an amendment? I don't know but I would imagine that number is closer to 30 than many Leftist would like to think, especially since it would not affect current citizens and children of citizens.

[Tgo01]

Did the authors and those that ratified the 14th Amendment intend for this to grant automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (as in after it was written those that of their own free will crossed our border illegally and then had a child)? I’ll admit that I’m no legal scholar and my opinion means jack shit, but my suspicion would be no.

I would say no.

Clearly the intent of the amendment was to guarantee citizenship and equal rights to children born to Americans. Pretty sure the founders weren't expecting something like "Hey if you're 8.75 months pregnant and you have never stepped foot in the US in your entire life, then go ahead and book a cruise to the US and while you're in the US for 12 hours you give birth and BOOM! Your child is now an American citizen!"

There are actually some people who hate the way this works. I read about one person who was born in the US but his parents were Canadian and the dude had never stepped foot in the US since he was born and he never thought anything about it until he started working in Canada and the IRS started sending him letters saying he owed income tax.

[Gelston]

On the topic of the 14th Amendment…

(And this is just me talking out of my ass here and playing devil’s advocate.)

One of the important components that SCOTUS considers when interpreting any constitutional amendment is the language and intent for the time that it was written. The 14th Amendment was one of many Reconstruction Acts passed after the Civil War. Clearly this amendment was chiefly written to apply to former American slaves. Did the authors and those that ratified the 14th Amendment intend for this to grant automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens (as in after it was written those that of their own free will crossed our border illegally and then had a child)? I’ll admit that I’m no legal scholar and my opinion means jack shit, but my suspicion would be no.

If that is all they wanted it to cover, they would have been specific and named Freed Slaves, just as the specifically named Indians in the next section of the same Amendment concerning apportionment of Representatives. That they did not do this, means the purposely left it open ended.

[Tgo01]

are there enough states that are so pissed off with this crap that they would be willing to ratify an amendment?

No. I think I read somewhere that 22 states are already suing Trump over this executive order, and 38 are needed to ratify an amendment.