It's not new. The right has been complaining about the replacement theory for a couple of decades.I love how Birth Tourism is the newest biggest threat to all we hold dear.
IANAL.
The language in the 14th amendment seems clear and straightforward.
The basic problem for conservatives or people against birthright citizenship is preventing non-American pregnant women from entering our country or preventing non-American women already here getting impregnated. I don’t see any other way to stop it. I don’t see how any state or federal law against birthright citizenship could be constitutional.
I think the status quo has the winning argument, but re your citations, the introducing senator's words are interesting, but not conclusive. It's one person's interpretation of the language who voted for it. His interpretation might be a brick of evidence towards the public meaning at the time, but not dispositive. Your quote of a case that includes allegiance might cut against birthright citizenship.”This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, . . . .”
This is why I think birth tourism and offspring of illegals are different. I also think this would be consistent with Ark.
I don’t have a quarrel with jus soli. However, I think it was a way to encourage immigration. Birth tourism is not immigration. And illegal immigration would not be immigration under the law either.
You've basically added an "and" in that sentence when it didn't exist --the language was self-limiting to "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States". In other words, the 14th amendment didn't apply to foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors. You've implied an "and" after "foreigners, aliens [AND] ambassadors"
There is a statute already prohibiting people from coming to the US to give birth.
There is far more to the discussion than just his opinion. The discussion on the floor was interesting to say the least.
I have no idea what allegiance means to infant born in the United States. The case law is all over, the place it feels very amorphous. Some say it is a pledge, others say it is an intrinsic loyalty when you are born in this country, others call it out as allegiance being you are allies. But, it isn't in the 14th amendment.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
Change the constitution. Do the hard work. Go convince the populace its the right thing to do. Basic democratic (form, not party) politics.IANAL.
The language in the 14th amendment seems clear and straightforward.
The basic problem for conservatives or people against birthright citizenship is preventing non-American pregnant women from entering our country or preventing non-American women already here getting impregnated. I don’t see any other way to stop it. I don’t see how any state or federal law against birthright citizenship could be constitutional.
Maybe it doesn't work anymore. Nation is too fractured. Too big. But that means we have a serious disconnect between our form of government and our needs, structure of nation, etc. What to do? The democratic fix is to break things up or to hold periodic constitutional conventions. The evolved fix is to tweak the words every once in awhile through a process that looks like traditional legal interpretation but really has an eye of bringing our form of govt more in line with what the nation might need through philosopher king judges (which you can argue is actually a traditional legal function in some sense). The irony is the latter solution is more traditionally conservative than the former.
I don’t understand why birth tourism is a problem. English common law re birthright citizenship did not include non residents. It’s part of the status quo is because of administrative laziness, not deliberate action. I have seen no logical argument why even a textualist would find citizenship in a birth tourist case. Textualists certainly wouldn’t find citizenship for a female who merely wants to see the Grand Canyon. What is the difference?
I think the same argument could be made about illegal immigrants. But I acknowledge that is more ambiguous if the illegal intends to establish residency. Then the question becomes can such a person legally establish residency.
Isn't it possible the court will say that the prez has no power to change the law unilaterally and if Congress bans such citizenships they will hear the case then.
Why a different test for state citizenship? I think US and state citizenship should be in pari materia.
This is by no means a procedurally clean case. Much better would have an action by one denied citizenship.
I think the EO directs government officials to not grant citizenship. A messy but not necessarily an ultra vires act.
@co-hoosier and much better if Congress passes something. Why have separation of powers if the prez can just do it via EO
Very possibleIsn't it possible the court will say that the prez has no power to change the law unilaterally and if Congress bans such citizenships they will hear the case then.
I don’t consider myself a citizen of Florida or a citizen of Indiana. I’m a citizen of the United States. That aside, I don’t even know what a state definition for citizenship is.Why a different test for state citizenship? I think US and state citizenship should be in pari materia.
I don’t see why jus soli shouldn’t equate to citizenship for any child born on American soil, even including diplomats. I’m talking about the principle of jus soli not the 14th amendment as written.I don’t understand why birth tourism is a problem. English common law re birthright citizenship did not include non residents. It’s part of the status quo is because of administrative laziness, not deliberate action. I have seen no logical argument why even a textualist would find citizenship in a birth tourist case. Textualists certainly wouldn’t find citizenship for a female who merely wants to see the Grand Canyon. What is the difference?
I think the same argument could be made about illegal immigrants. But I acknowledge that is more ambiguous if the illegal intends to establish residency. Then the question becomes can such a person legally establish residency.
It would even put illegal immigrant parents in a quandary. If they want proof that their child was born on American soil, they expose themselves to deportation.