re: Is President Trump still intent on keeping his promise of ending birthright citizenship?

quote:

---

Are you trying to say judges should have the power to ignore/overrule the Constitution?

---

It seems that they do have that power.

eta: They shouldn't

quote:

---

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

This is the big sticking point. When the amendment was drafted, it was questioned whether or not it was meant to apply to Native American tribesmen living in U.S. territories. The answer was no, because they are subjects to the jurisdiction of their tribe, a sovereign nation. That treatment has been changed by statute which now recognizes Native Americans as having dual citizenship with the United States and their sovereign tribal nation.

Legal immigrants and those with temporary visas have been interpreted to be "subject to the jurisdiction therein" because they have purposefully gotten permission from the United States government to be here. This was decided in United States v. Wong By getting permission from the government to be here, they have thus "targeted the forum" and "availed themselves of the jurisdiction" under the Pennoyer v. Neff test for minimum contacts by which one is subject to the jurisdiction of a court.

No such SCOTUS ruling has ever been made regarding the status of the children of illegal immigrants, but our government has presumed that they are covered by United States v. Wong, but that is not certain until SCOTUS rules on it for certain.