from reading about your situation, from I was led to this Wall Street Journal legal scholar opinion, which assuming he is correct in his citations shows that the supposition is wrong
I’m not so sure, given that in the decision I cited, residency was the justification. If there’s no residency, if it’s just a visitor, then it may not apply. The decision also said that employees of foreign companies only here to represent their country’s interests are also treated as not subject to our jurisdiction for the purposes of birthright citizenship. So say, a Japanese manager sent to a Toyota factory in Tennessee, his kids are not automatically citizens if they are born here while he’s on that assignment. I mean, right now they are, but that doesn’t seem to be something the US HAS to grant under the 14th amendment.
Or, ,allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but stipulate that this does the illegal immigrant parents no good and confers no benefits. Kids have to be with their parents, and their parents have to go back to their home country. Their kids can come back when they turn 18, and cannot apply to sponsor their parents unless the parents were here legally. No question that passes constitutional muster.
And would their parents’ countries of origin even let them off the plane? The US is not the arbiter of other countries’ citizenship processes. Just because America thinks the baby should be, say, Ecuadorian, doesn’t mean Ecuador is obligated to agree and take in this person who is, functionally, an alien.
I doubt that would pass constitutional muster. If the kids are citizens, they can stay with relatives or sponsors. There is nothing in the constitution that says children have to stay with parents.
I have no problem, in theory, of taking another look at citizenship and what makes sense in the 21st century. But we do that through Congress, and abiding by the Constitution. I doubt I would want to make a change, but maybe some tweaking if there is a convincing argument to be made by someone. Otherwise it looks like a solution in search of a problem, and although we have some problems with our immigration system, I don’t think citizenship is one of them.
If they have relatives willing to take them in, fine. But as a general rule, I think we could all agree that no one should get a legal benefit from an illegal act.
As I said before, sure, if there are relatives willing to take them in and the parents don’t want to take the kids home with them. See: Elian Gonzalez precedent.
These are all things that could and maybe even should be. But the text of the Constitution is “born in the United States” not “born to a female resident of the United States with no prospects or relatives in a foreign country”.
You’re just distracting away from the actual text with wishful desires. As said, if you want to take a textual approach, then tough titties.
Trump is the master of flashing shiny coins to change the subject while throwing out red meat at the same time.
At a point when Trump’s rhetoric and normalization of white nationalism has emboldened crazies to send pipe bombs to those Hannity has identified as evil, when we’ve had someone kill eleven people in a temple both well, because they are of a Jewish race (religion has nothing to do with this sort of hate, it is a perceived “race”) and a Jewish organization supports refugee settlement program, Trump distracts with this crap appealing to the immigrant phobia and hate of his base at the same time.
Think about what the bigots are saying about “subject to the jurisdiction of”. They apply it to the parent, and then assert that the child cannot be a citizen because the parent was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s nonsense because the child is the one being born and also both the child and the parent, regardless of the parent’s immigration/citizenship status are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.