Fourteenth Amendment “birthright citizenship” intended by those writing the 14th Amendment.
Those who wrap themselves in the Constitution, prove how much they really despise it.
Yes, when the 14th Amendment was passed, the inspiration was the newly-freed slaves.
But this was the motivation, not the limitation.
The leaders writing this Amendment were not stupid. They wrote what they wrote. It is what it is.
They were in an expansive mood and they wrote the wording very broadly. The debates at the time show that the issue of foreigners giving birth in the United States was discussed and, like many other countries, those who enacted the Amendment intended for them to be covered other than indigenous Americans (whose reservations, at that time, were considered separate and sovereign nations) or foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity made them outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States (so they cannot be sued in civil court or charged in criminal court, which undocumented immigrants CAN be, because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States).
When the Supreme Court decided 14th Amendment rights cases in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), rights were defined broadly and the judges referenced the Congressional debates that showed the intent of those who passed these Amendments.
Motivated by newly-freed slaves, yes. Limited to that, in your fantasies.
And no, a president cannot repeal a Constitutional Amendment with an executive order (and seriously, Trump [without factual basis] whined about Obama abusing executive orders?)
Fourteenth Amendment “birthright citizenship” intended by those writing the 14th Amendment.
Those who wrap themselves in the Constitution, prove how much they really despise it.
Yes, when the 14th Amendment was passed, the inspiration was the newly-freed slaves.
But this was the motivation, not the limitation.
The leaders writing this Amendment were not stupid. They wrote what they wrote. It is what it is.
They were in an expansive mood and they wrote the wording very broadly. The debates at the time show that the issue of foreigners giving birth in the United States was discussed and, like many other countries, those who enacted the Amendment intended for them to be covered other than indigenous Americans (whose reservations, at that time, were considered separate and sovereign nations) or foreign diplomats, whose diplomatic immunity made them outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States (so they cannot be sued in civil court or charged in criminal court, which undocumented immigrants CAN be, because they ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the United States).
When the Supreme Court decided 14th Amendment rights cases in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), rights were defined broadly and the judges referenced the Congressional debates that showed the intent of those who passed these Amendments.
Motivated by newly-freed slaves, yes. Limited to that, in your fantasies.
And no, a president cannot repeal a Constitutional Amendment with an executive order (and seriously, Trump [without factual basis] whined about Obama abusing executive orders?)