Proposed law to eliminate US citizenship by birthright

[Saint_Cad]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Even if it passes, which it won’t, it will be overturned in a fast five seconds. There’s absolutely no way SCOTUS allows such a sweeping change to Constitutional interpretation to be made by simple legislative action.

Section (2) is quite interesting, as you note. I would guess that the basic intent is to prevent pregnant women with no other means of support from crossing the border in order to give birth.

I disagree. Like I wrote in another thread, the author of the citizenship clause (Sen. Howard - MI) said that it did not apply to children of foreign nationals. Also in US v. Wong Kim Ark, the parents were in the country legally. The only case relating to ILLEGAL immigrant was a SCOTUS case (can’t remember offhand) in which an illegal immigrant is considered a RESIDENT of the state under the 14th Amendment.

Also note the context of Wong Kim Ark, Chinese nationals could never become legal citizens unlike today. If Congress were to to add 2 clauses, it may pass SCOTUS.

1. Not revoking the citizenship of anyone
2. Putting a process to naturalize a child born in the US if his parents were in the country legally. Possibly some sort of length of stay in the US by 18th birthday.

If it doesn’t pass SCOTUS, then there is the draconian solution. Deport the parents of anchor babies and give them 3 choices with their US citizen children:

1. Stay with relatives in the US legally
2. Adopt them out so that they can stay
3. They go with their parents and can return when 18

[foolsguinea]

@Bryan_Ekers

A straight reading looks to me like a person born to an unmarried illegal immigrant is immune to the law and can thus kill, rape and park in fire lanes at will.

As a right bastard, I heartily support this interpretation.

Seriously, though, the entire idea is inane in the extreme. In the first place, it requires an *anti-intentionalist *reading of the existing constitution, in that it uses “jurisdiction” in a sense implying that the writer thinks jurisdiction is only a grant of positive gifts. It’s not just ignorant, it’s stupid.

Leaving that aside, this isn’t even desirable (well, except to short-sighted nationalists). Creating a sub-citizen underclass is dangerous.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@SaintCad

I disagree. Like I wrote in another thread, the author of the citizenship clause (Sen. Howard - MI) said that it did not apply to children of foreign nationals. Also in US v. Wong Kim Ark, the parents were in the country legally. The only case relating to ILLEGAL immigrant was a SCOTUS case (can’t remember offhand) in which an illegal immigrant is considered a RESIDENT of the state under the 14th Amendment.

Nobody cares about original intent anymore, and certainly not SCOTUS as currently constituted.