Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Geneviev]

He will probably try to actually change the constitution the right way eventually.

Once his handlers can explain Constitutional Conventions in coloring book form and print enough Trump stickers to make him notice all the pages.

He would understand without all of that, which is concerning.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Hey, that's unconstitutional.

Then why do we have legal immigration laws and illegal immigration laws? Why have President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump deported illegal persons who are not criminals? Why did President Obama Turn back Cubans at the Mexican US Border?

Did President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump violate the US Constitution by deporting so called illegal Persons?

Why do all nations It the world have legal imnmigration laws and illegal immigration laws?

Enforcing the law and making changes to the Constitution are two very different things, neither of which directly involve executive orders.

[Valgora]

Hey, that's unconstitutional.

Then why do we have legal immigration laws and illegal immigration laws? Why have President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump deported illegal persons who are not criminals? Why did President Obama Turn back Cubans at the Mexican US Border?

Did President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump violate the US Constitution by deporting so called illegal Persons?

Why do all nations It the world have legal imnmigration laws and illegal immigration laws?

Do you even know what this topic is about?
Trump can't change the 14th Amendment by getting rid of and/or interpreting the Birthright Citizenship Clause with an executive order.
The President can't change the constitution with an executive order, it is unconstitutional.

[Mardla]

Our Founding Fathers?? No way! The Naturalization Act of 1790 is a forgery!

Excuse me?

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson privately confessed his admiration for Adolf Hitler, saying, "I[...]hold it as an utmost certainty that there can be no great people without a great leader[...]just as fraternity is a blood relation, the purity of a nation's fraternity is wholly determined by the purity of its blood. True liberty must have this fraternity, and the soil to accommodate its greatness."

To this day, many libertarians are influenced by Hitler and consider his Germany the ideal model of a libertarian state.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Excuse me?

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson privately confessed his admiration for Adolf Hitler, saying, "I[...]hold it as an utmost certainty that there can be no great people without a great leader[...]just as fraternity is a blood relation, the purity of a nation's fraternity is wholly determined by the purity of its blood. True liberty must have this fraternity, and the soil to accommodate its greatness."

To this day, many libertarians are influenced by Hitler and consider his Germany the ideal model of a libertarian state.

I hope that this is a shitpost. Either that, or someone isn't aware that Jefferson died over 60 years before Hitler was born.

[Len Hyet]

Excuse me?

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson privately confessed his admiration for Adolf Hitler, saying, "I[...]hold it as an utmost certainty that there can be no great people without a great leader[...]just as fraternity is a blood relation, the purity of a nation's fraternity is wholly determined by the purity of its blood. True liberty must have this fraternity, and the soil to accommodate its greatness."

To this day, many libertarians are influenced by Hitler and consider his Germany the ideal model of a libertarian state.

It's... almost funny. 5/10. Good effort, poor follow-through.

[Mardla]

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson privately confessed his admiration for Adolf Hitler, saying, "I[...]hold it as an utmost certainty that there can be no great people without a great leader[...]just as fraternity is a blood relation, the purity of a nation's fraternity is wholly determined by the purity of its blood. True liberty must have this fraternity, and the soil to accommodate its greatness."

To this day, many libertarians are influenced by Hitler and consider his Germany the ideal model of a libertarian state.

It's... almost funny. 5/10. Good effort, poor follow-through.

As James Madison said about the Articles of the Confederacy, "One attempt is seldom sufficient. A problem is not always remedied by the first solution."

[Internationalist Bastard]

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson privately confessed his admiration for Adolf Hitler, saying, "I[...]hold it as an utmost certainty that there can be no great people without a great leader[...]just as fraternity is a blood relation, the purity of a nation's fraternity is wholly determined by the purity of its blood. True liberty must have this fraternity, and the soil to accommodate its greatness."

To this day, many libertarians are influenced by Hitler and consider his Germany the ideal model of a libertarian state.

I hope that this is a shitpost. Either that, or someone isn't aware that Jefferson died over 60 years before Hitler was born.

Parkus on a good day is a comedic stereotype ripped from from an overly critical cartoon

[NS Miami Shores]

He will probably try to actually change the constitution the right way eventually.

Once his handlers can explain Constitutional Conventions in coloring book form and print enough Trump stickers to make him notice all the pages.

lol, it is the other way around, President Trump handles his handlers, he fires them lol, The Great Fierer in Chief lol, and let lots not forget The Great Deporter in Chief Obama who turned Back Cubans at the Mexican American Border and the media reported on it but did not criticize him for it but if President Trump does it will critize him.

[Seangoli]

Hey, that's unconstitutional.

Then why do we have legal immigration laws and illegal immigration laws? Why have President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump deported illegal persons who are not criminals? Why did President Obama Turn back Cubans at the Mexican US Border?

Did President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump violate the US Constitution by deporting so called illegal Persons?

Why do all nations It the world have legal imnmigration laws and illegal immigration laws?

It's not unconstitutional to deport illegal immigrants; it is unconstitutional to redefine citizenship with with an Executive Order. He can deport all the people he wants so long as he legally does so, and yes, he can have border patrol turn away most anyone so long as it is done through the legal channels provided.

That's not what is at question; what is at question is birthright citizenship. Thanks to the wording of the 14th Amendment coupled with US v. Wong Kim Ark and Polyle v. Doe, birthright citizenship is provided in the 14th Amendment. You simply cannot legally change that with an Executive Order.

Further, we don't and shouldn't give a shit what other countries do. They are not the US. The US has its own body of laws, and they should be followed. Was the 14th Amendment rather poorly worded? Perhaps or perhaps not. One could just as easily argue that even though children of illegal immigrants may not have been the intent, the intent was also to allow for further application of citizenship than just to former slaves from the 14th Amendment; it's not as though immigration wasn't a hot-bed issue at the time, and it's not as though undocumented immigrants were an unknown concept. All Amendments are by design, necessity, and nature a compromise of ideas, and no singular interpretation even from the time of its passage encompasses every single drafter's thoughts on the subject. There is a very strong reason why they were not far more explicit with the language in the 14th even though they easily could have been and had the where-withal to do so if they desired, and it was left to encompass more than just former slaves by design even if it wasn't meant to address the modern issue of illegal immigration specifically. This is the fundamental problem with Originalists, as it accepts only those Originalists arguments that agree with their position while ignoring other arguments from the time that disagree with them, and arbitrarily at that. The Drafters of amendments were not a monolith, and the wording of every Amendment is chosen very carefully so as not to have undesired effects of allowing the Government to encroach upon its citizenry. Applying the "originalist" interpretation that "jurisdiction" has one very narrow meaning when it comes to citizenry opens up a very dangerous can of worms that is rife for abuse, wherein clever means to deny citizenship to even those who are born of US citizens can be found and would be legal.

Further, applying a strict definition to the legal definition of jurisdiction is absolutely required, which is exactly why the courts enshrined Jus Soli in US v. Wong Kim Ark and was reaffirmed by both the majority and dissenting opinions in Polyle v. Doe. If "jurisdiction" in the 14th applies only and strictly to Legal residents, then the Country has practically zero jurisdictional authority to non-legal individuals in the US. This is an obvious absurdity, and so we must accept the fact that Jurisdiction applies not only to authority over legal citizens, but also to authority within the borders of the country itself.

[San Lumen]

Then why do we have legal immigration laws and illegal immigration laws? Why have President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump deported illegal persons who are not criminals? Why did President Obama Turn back Cubans at the Mexican US Border?

Did President Clinton, President Obama and President Trump violate the US Constitution by deporting so called illegal Persons?

Why do all nations It the world have legal imnmigration laws and illegal immigration laws?

It's not unconstitutional to deport illegal immigrants; it is unconstitutional to redefine citizenship with with an Executive Order. He can deport all the people he wants so long as he legally does so, and yes, he can have border patrol turn away most anyone so long as it is done through the legal channels provided.

That's not what is at question; what is at question is birthright citizenship. Thanks to the wording of the 14th Amendment coupled with US v. Wong Kim Ark and Polyle v. Doe, birthright citizenship is provided in the 14th Amendment. You simply cannot legally change that with an Executive Order.

Further, we don't and shouldn't give a shit what other countries do. They are not the US. The US has its own body of laws, and they should be followed. Was the 14th Amendment rather poorly worded? Perhaps or perhaps not. One could just as easily argue that even though children of illegal immigrants may not have been the intent, the intent was also to allow for further application of citizenship than just to former slaves from the 14th Amendment; it's not as though immigration wasn't a hot-bed issue at the time, and it's not as though undocumented immigrants were an unknown concept. All Amendments are by design, necessity, and nature a compromise of ideas, and no singular interpretation even from the time of its passage encompasses every single drafter's thoughts on the subject. There is a very strong reason why they were not far more explicit with the language in the 14th even though they easily could have been and had the where-withal to do so if they desired, and it was left to encompass more than just former slaves by design even if it wasn't meant to address the modern issue of illegal immigration specifically. This is the fundamental problem with Originalists, as it accepts only those Originalists arguments that agree with their position while ignoring other arguments from the time that disagree with them, and arbitrarily at that. The Drafters of amendments were not a monolith, and the wording of every Amendment is chosen very carefully so as not to have undesired effects of allowing the Government to encroach upon its citizenry. Applying the "originalist" interpretation that "jurisdiction" has one very narrow meaning when it comes to citizenry opens up a very dangerous can of worms that is rife for abuse, wherein clever means to deny citizenship to even those who are born of US citizens can be found and would be legal.

Further, applying a strict definition to the legal definition of jurisdiction is absolutely required, which is exactly why the courts enshrined Jus Soli in US v. Wong Kim Ark and was reaffirmed by both the majority and dissenting opinions in Polyle v. Doe. If "jurisdiction" in the 14th applies only and strictly to Legal residents, then the Country has practically zero jurisdictional authority to non-legal individuals in the US. This is an obvious absurdity, and so we must accept the fact that Jurisdiction applies not only to authority over legal citizens, but also to authority within the borders of the country itself.

This. It is extremely unlikely this executive order would not be smacked down by the courts.

[Geneviev]

Once his handlers can explain Constitutional Conventions in coloring book form and print enough Trump stickers to make him notice all the pages.

lol, it is the other way around, President Trump handles his handlers, he fires them lol, The Great Fierer in Chief lol, and let lots not forget The Great Deporter in Chief Obama who turned Back Cubans at the Mexican American Border and the media reported on it but did not criticize him for it but if President Trump does it will critize him.

President Obama didn't try to amend the constitution by executive order and didn't do anything that would possibly make me not be a US citizen. Besides, this isn't about Obama.

[Vassenor]

lol, it is the other way around, President Trump handles his handlers, he fires them lol, The Great Fierer in Chief lol, and let lots not forget The Great Deporter in Chief Obama who turned Back Cubans at the Mexican American Border and the media reported on it but did not criticize him for it but if President Trump does it will critize him.

President Obama didn't try to amend the constitution by executive order and didn't do anything that would possibly make me not be a US citizen. Besides, this isn't about Obama.

I think we've established that BUT OBAMA or BUT CLINTON deflections are pretty much the go-to response whenever Trump is criticised.

[NS Miami Shores]

lol, it is the other way around, President Trump handles his handlers, he fires them lol, The Great Fierer in Chief lol, and let lots not forget The Great Deporter in Chief Obama who turned Back Cubans at the Mexican American Border and the media reported on it but did not criticize him for it but if President Trump does it will critize him.

President Obama didn't try to amend the constitution by executive order and didn't do anything that would possibly make me not be a US citizen. Besides, this isn't about Obama.[/quote
We have the right to compare president Obama's and President Clintons immigration policy and any world leaders immigration policies on NS on any nations immigration related thread,

This thread needs a pro and Con Poll? Too bad we cant make it a public Poll to see who votes Pro and Who votes con like in the good old days on NS.?

[Happsborough]

This is one of the policies I most anticipate and support. I'm a US historian (not professionally) and the 14th amendment was never intended to give citizenship to anchor babies. It was to resolve the question of what to do with the relatively large population of Black southerners that were formerly slaves. The goal was to give these Blacks US citizenship but it was poorly written in haste, which is why the birthright citizenship problem has come to exist.

It has been a long time coming that the US would eventually close the loophole so that people from all corners of the world won't flock to the US expressly for the purpose of having their child be born there in order to claim citizenship and/or benefits in relation to that.

You misunderstand the fundamental values of America, I dare say. The purpose of America's mere existence is to be an anchor for freedom and liberty in the world. People shouldn't HAVE to pass some sort of rigorous exam to simply be let in or have a life-or-death reason to come to America.

[Arouran]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nship-is-i unconstitutional/2018/10/30/4615ab5c-dc85-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

[Vassenor]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nship-is-i unconstitutional/2018/10/30/4615ab5c-dc85-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

...Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.

[Valgora]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nship-is-i unconstitutional/2018/10/30/4615ab5c-dc85-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

No more 14th Amendment?
The Due Process Clause is pretty damn important.

Also, the Birthright Citizenship Clause does apply to children born to illegal immigrants. To change that would require removing Birthright Citizenship with an amendment.

[Geneviev]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nship-is-i unconstitutional/2018/10/30/4615ab5c-dc85-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

The 14th amendment grants citizenship to people who were born in America to legal parents as much as illegal, and should remain as it is for that reason.

[Valrifell]

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

No more 14th Amendment?
The Due Process Clause is pretty damn important.

The 14th is (probably) one of the most cited amendments in SCOTUS cases since it was passed, getting rid of it is a really really bad idea. Repealing it in any form is a really really bad idea.

[Seangoli]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nship-is-i unconstitutional/2018/10/30/4615ab5c-dc85-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

From my previous post:

That's not what is at question; what is at question is birthright citizenship. Thanks to the wording of the 14th Amendment coupled with US v. Wong Kim Ark and Polyle v. Doe, birthright citizenship is provided in the 14th Amendment. You simply cannot legally change that with an Executive Order.

Further, we don't and shouldn't give a shit what other countries do. They are not the US. The US has its own body of laws, and they should be followed. Was the 14th Amendment rather poorly worded? Perhaps or perhaps not. One could just as easily argue that even though children of illegal immigrants may not have been the intent, the intent was also to allow for further application of citizenship than just to former slaves from the 14th Amendment; it's not as though immigration wasn't a hot-bed issue at the time, and it's not as though undocumented immigrants were an unknown concept. All Amendments are by design, necessity, and nature a compromise of ideas, and no singular interpretation even from the time of its passage encompasses every single drafter's thoughts on the subject. There is a very strong reason why they were not far more explicit with the language in the 14th even though they easily could have been and had the where-withal to do so if they desired, and it was left to encompass more than just former slaves by design even if it wasn't meant to address the modern issue of illegal immigration specifically. This is the fundamental problem with Originalists, as it accepts only those Originalists arguments that agree with their position while ignoring other arguments from the time that disagree with them, and arbitrarily at that. The Drafters of amendments were not a monolith, and the wording of every Amendment is chosen very carefully so as not to have undesired effects of allowing the Government to encroach upon its citizenry. Applying the "originalist" interpretation that "jurisdiction" has one very narrow meaning when it comes to citizenry opens up a very dangerous can of worms that is rife for abuse, wherein clever means to deny citizenship to even those who are born of US citizens can be found and would be legal.

Further, applying a strict definition to the legal definition of jurisdiction is absolutely required, which is exactly why the courts enshrined Jus Soli in US v. Wong Kim Ark and was reaffirmed by both the majority and dissenting opinions in Polyle v. Doe. If "jurisdiction" in the 14th applies only and strictly to Legal residents, then the Country has practically zero jurisdictional authority to non-legal individuals in the US. This is an obvious absurdity, and so we must accept the fact that Jurisdiction applies not only to authority over legal citizens, but also to authority within the borders of the country itself.

If the drafters wanted the Amendment to be *only* applicable to former slaves, they would have explicitly stated as much. It's not as though they were idiots who didn't see the fact that using "jurisdiction" instead of more explicit language would open the door for unintended consequences. While I highly doubt that children of illegal immigrants was on their mind at all when passing the Amendment, what most certainly was on their mind was the notion that some unscrupulous individuals would use any narrow wording to their advantage, and deny citizenship to otherwise legal individuals through clever legalizing. Hence why they decided not to more explicitly define "jurisdiction" or more explicitly provide a narrow-focused concept of citizenry in the Amendment.

Part of ensuring that nobody's rights are infringed means that sometimes you have to provide rights to those you don't like or even think should have them, which is exactly why the 14th is worded as precisely and exactly as it was. They knew full well there would be unintended consequences of wording it as such, and accepted this truth as the other side of the coin was far, far worse. While they may not have envisioned the particulars of the modern day when drafting the Amendment, it would absolute folly to assume they had no concept that it would, could, and should be applied more broadly than "just" to slaves.

[Scomagia]

It's not unconstitutional to deport illegal immigrants; it is unconstitutional to redefine citizenship with with an Executive Order. He can deport all the people he wants so long as he legally does so, and yes, he can have border patrol turn away most anyone so long as it is done through the legal channels provided.

That's not what is at question; what is at question is birthright citizenship. Thanks to the wording of the 14th Amendment coupled with US v. Wong Kim Ark and Polyle v. Doe, birthright citizenship is provided in the 14th Amendment. You simply cannot legally change that with an Executive Order.

Further, we don't and shouldn't give a shit what other countries do. They are not the US. The US has its own body of laws, and they should be followed. Was the 14th Amendment rather poorly worded? Perhaps or perhaps not. One could just as easily argue that even though children of illegal immigrants may not have been the intent, the intent was also to allow for further application of citizenship than just to former slaves from the 14th Amendment; it's not as though immigration wasn't a hot-bed issue at the time, and it's not as though undocumented immigrants were an unknown concept. All Amendments are by design, necessity, and nature a compromise of ideas, and no singular interpretation even from the time of its passage encompasses every single drafter's thoughts on the subject. There is a very strong reason why they were not far more explicit with the language in the 14th even though they easily could have been and had the where-withal to do so if they desired, and it was left to encompass more than just former slaves by design even if it wasn't meant to address the modern issue of illegal immigration specifically. This is the fundamental problem with Originalists, as it accepts only those Originalists arguments that agree with their position while ignoring other arguments from the time that disagree with them, and arbitrarily at that. The Drafters of amendments were not a monolith, and the wording of every Amendment is chosen very carefully so as not to have undesired effects of allowing the Government to encroach upon its citizenry. Applying the "originalist" interpretation that "jurisdiction" has one very narrow meaning when it comes to citizenry opens up a very dangerous can of worms that is rife for abuse, wherein clever means to deny citizenship to even those who are born of US citizens can be found and would be legal.

Further, applying a strict definition to the legal definition of jurisdiction is absolutely required, which is exactly why the courts enshrined Jus Soli in US v. Wong Kim Ark and was reaffirmed by both the majority and dissenting opinions in Polyle v. Doe. If "jurisdiction" in the 14th applies only and strictly to Legal residents, then the Country has practically zero jurisdictional authority to non-legal individuals in the US. This is an obvious absurdity, and so we must accept the fact that Jurisdiction applies not only to authority over legal citizens, but also to authority within the borders of the country itself.

This. It is extremely unlikely this executive order would not be smacked down by the courts.

If I understand properly it isn't just unlikely, it's actually impossible that they wouldn't since the Executive simply doesn't have the power to do this.

[NS Miami Shores]

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

From my previous post:

That's not what is at question; what is at question is birthright citizenship. Thanks to the wording of the 14th Amendment coupled with US v. Wong Kim Ark and Polyle v. Doe, birthright citizenship is provided in the 14th Amendment. You simply cannot legally change that with an Executive Order.

Further, we don't and shouldn't give a shit what other countries do. They are not the US. The US has its own body of laws, and they should be followed. Was the 14th Amendment rather poorly worded? Perhaps or perhaps not. One could just as easily argue that even though children of illegal immigrants may not have been the intent, the intent was also to allow for further application of citizenship than just to former slaves from the 14th Amendment; it's not as though immigration wasn't a hot-bed issue at the time, and it's not as though undocumented immigrants were an unknown concept. All Amendments are by design, necessity, and nature a compromise of ideas, and no singular interpretation even from the time of its passage encompasses every single drafter's thoughts on the subject. There is a very strong reason why they were not far more explicit with the language in the 14th even though they easily could have been and had the where-withal to do so if they desired, and it was left to encompass more than just former slaves by design even if it wasn't meant to address the modern issue of illegal immigration specifically. This is the fundamental problem with Originalists, as it accepts only those Originalists arguments that agree with their position while ignoring other arguments from the time that disagree with them, and arbitrarily at that. The Drafters of amendments were not a monolith, and the wording of every Amendment is chosen very carefully so as not to have undesired effects of allowing the Government to encroach upon its citizenry. Applying the "originalist" interpretation that "jurisdiction" has one very narrow meaning when it comes to citizenry opens up a very dangerous can of worms that is rife for abuse, wherein clever means to deny citizenship to even those who are born of US citizens can be found and would be legal.

Further, applying a strict definition to the legal definition of jurisdiction is absolutely required, which is exactly why the courts enshrined Jus Soli in US v. Wong Kim Ark and was reaffirmed by both the majority and dissenting opinions in Polyle v. Doe. If "jurisdiction" in the 14th applies only and strictly to Legal residents, then the Country has practically zero jurisdictional authority to non-legal individuals in the US. This is an obvious absurdity, and so we must accept the fact that Jurisdiction applies not only to authority over legal citizens, but also to authority within the borders of the country itself.

If the drafters wanted the Amendment to be *only* applicable to former slaves, they would have explicitly stated as much. It's not as though they were idiots who didn't see the fact that using "jurisdiction" instead of more explicit language would open the door for unintended consequences. While I highly doubt that children of illegal immigrants was on their mind at all when passing the Amendment, what most certainly was on their mind was the notion that some unscrupulous individuals would use any narrow wording to their advantage, and deny citizenship to otherwise legal individuals through clever legalizing. Hence why they decided not to more explicitly define "jurisdiction" or more explicitly provide a narrow-focused concept of citizenry in the Amendment.

Part of ensuring that nobody's rights are infringed means that sometimes you have to provide rights to those you don't like or even think should have them, which is exactly why the 14th is worded as precisely and exactly as it was. They knew full well there would be unintended consequences of wording it as such, and accepted this truth as the other side of the coin was far, far worse.

No one has answered my questions?

[Valgora]

From my previous post:



If the drafters wanted the Amendment to be *only* applicable to former slaves, they would have explicitly stated as much. It's not as though they were idiots who didn't see the fact that using "jurisdiction" instead of more explicit language would open the door for unintended consequences. While I highly doubt that children of illegal immigrants was on their mind at all when passing the Amendment, what most certainly was on their mind was the notion that some unscrupulous individuals would use any narrow wording to their advantage, and deny citizenship to otherwise legal individuals through clever legalizing. Hence why they decided not to more explicitly define "jurisdiction" or more explicitly provide a narrow-focused concept of citizenry in the Amendment.

Part of ensuring that nobody's rights are infringed means that sometimes you have to provide rights to those you don't like or even think should have them, which is exactly why the 14th is worded as precisely and exactly as it was. They knew full well there would be unintended consequences of wording it as such, and accepted this truth as the other side of the coin was far, far worse.

No one has answered my questions?

Then what are your questions?

[San Lumen]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... nship-is-i unconstitutional/2018/10/30/4615ab5c-dc85-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.d4e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

I agree no more 14th amendment,it was made for slaves not illegals

Then clearly you like others don't understand its text