It was never intended to be used the way it is today. It needs to be done away with through the proper procedure.
iirc I heard it quoted by the talking heads that we (USA) was the only country who allowed illegals that. All other countries you were not given citizen ship just for being birthed in their country.. You were a citizen of the country your parents were from. That alone would solve a lot of the problems.
And that would require a constitutional amendment.
I think Trump is wrong on this. He can't sign an executive order to change the constitution.
I disagree.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the Constitution. I don't think an Executive Order to recognize the true meaning of the Constitution as a change to it either. This isn't really directed at you Scott, since I know you know the historical background, but many may not.
The 14th Amendment was put in place after the Civil War to undo the Dred Scott decision...gave citizenship rights to freed slaves who were born here, lived here and were under the jurisdiction of the US and the states in which they resided. Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, author of the citizenship clause. expressly said: “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.” That is how the 14th Amendment was written, the intent and the way it was for a long while.
Various SCOTUS rulings came out that tweaked a few things, but the everything stayed the same for close to 100 years. US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898 ruled that LEGAL immigrants who had children when in the US legally would then be added to those eligible for birthright citizenship, as they were under the jurisdiction of the US through their legal status. Makes sense.
Fast forward from 1898 to 1982. Justice Brennan made a sweeping transformation change with a mere footnote in his opinion. Plyer v. Doe was a 5-4 decision. Brennan wrote " “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” This is the sole source for "anchor babies" in the US Constitution as legal and birthright for those here illegally or unlawfully. And the theory is that Justice Brennan gained this insight from some book writer named Clement Bouve. Not authoritative, just liberal musings from some author who was not a judge or an elected official....but apparently this "spoke" to Brennan and he surged forth with judicial activism and added in a footnote that is now INTERPRETED as the law of the land.
What WAS wrong was this 1982 SCOTUS rulings on the 14th Amendment that opened the door for illegals to give birth here within the border and have that child be a US citizen. That was never intended by the Constitution. Had been upheld previously...erased by a footnote in the majority opinion.
An Executive Order going back to the way it was isn't unconstitutional in my thinking either. It was the law for a long time. And executive Order that upholds the intent of the Constitution...that's a fight worth having.
Why? Because it will be a huge roadblock...more important than even a physical wall to throttling down the wave of illegal immigration. Now, an EO to under what is considered to be the law...that may be very hard to do. Personally, I'd love to see the 14th Amendment rewritten to be very specific so as not to have to deal with activists courts trying to change things that don't need changing.
