re: Why Trumpsigned EO to end birthright citizenship

quote:

---

Indeed.

---

Glad you're seeing the light.

quote:

---

Whenever they carry on that the Founders could never imagine modern weaponry, it's usually a good time to remind them that they also couldn't imagine a nation where women could vote, either.

---

That was done via Amendment.

quote:

---

It is legally irrelevant because Chief Justice Gray declared it to be irrelevant.

---

Along with EVERY court since.

quote:

---

It is not in dispute that it was their intent.

---

"Their"?

You're relying on a quote of one person. Certainly you understand plural.

quote:

---

So why extradition fights?

---

Not to digress too much, since this is an irrelevant question, but typically that's to see who gets to prosecute first.

However, to get this back into relevancy, in determining if someone is able to be extradited, jurisdiction must be established by the requesting state.

quote:

---

Were Indians granted birthright citizenship before the 14th amendment? Were they directly after the 14th amendment?

---

You should have just kept reading

quote:

---

That wasn't decided by an overruling precedent. WKA specifically discusses that path, which happened decades after the ruling.

There is no conflict.

---

Right.

It is worth repeating that despite the certainty some people posting constantly on the internet, SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of whether a person born on U.S. soil to people present in the US without the consent of the US government are citizens under the 14th Amendment.
Plenty of good legal minds think that the 14th Amendment does not apply in such a situation.
For example, Judge Richard Posner:

quote:

---

We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship, rather than to subject U.S. citizens to the ugly choice to which the Immigration Service is (legally) subjecting these two girls. A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it. Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity 116-17 (1985); Dan Stein & John Bauer, “Interpreting the 14th Amendment: Automatic Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants,” 7 Stanford L. & Policy Rev. 127, 130 (1996). The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress does not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.

---

quote:

---

TeamTrump is literally arguing that illegals aren't under the jurisdiction of ANY state

---

No they aren't. They're saying that if you're not here legally and have a child that child isn't automatically a citizen.

quote:

---

SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of whether a person born on U.S. soil to people present in the US without the consent of the US government are citizens under the 14th Amendment.

---

When the Constitution becomes a living document, this will matter.

quote:

---

and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress does not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally.

---

This makes negative sense

That is literally what the literal reading of the text denotes.

quote:

---

No they aren't. They're saying that if you're not here legally and have a child that child isn't automatically a citizen.

---

But how, Given that in order for this argument to work, those people would then not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

quote:

---

Who is Posner? Probably has never even had his picture on a bus bench.

---

The devolution continues