Fix the constitution to remove citizenship by mere birth in our nation.
Yes?

Nothing needs fixed.
It doesn't do that now.
Unless you CHOOSE to pretend it says something it doesn't say.

Amend the Second, leave the Fourteenth.


"Leave the gun... take the cannoli"

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

That's the part that causes illegals and tourists to be able to take them home.
America has no right or obligation to children of foreign citizens.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/30/18 at 17:41:20:


um, that's not how that works....  because the second sentence says: " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


person, not citizen, it clearly says citizen in the first part of the sentence, so it knows the difference and makes a distinction here.  do we not prosecute illegal criminals HERE if they commit crimes here, like murder?  so are they or are they not under our jurisdiction if they are here?

now that is why we deny diplomats that right, they have diplomatic immunity and therefor are NOT under our jurisdiction, and people can take their kids anywhere they want

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumen...

Read articles about the debates at the time. This is just like the 2nd Amendment. There was no misunderstanding what the Amendment meant.



Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

Which demonstrates that the supreme court has been Wrong.
A kid passing eighth grade English knows better.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 10/31/18 at 14:13:25:



if it had just been one time, sure, but it has been tested over time, and from even BEFORE the 14th amendment was passed


Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/414032-supreme-court-set-clear-preced...

and you're right the supreme court can be wrong, and has, many times, this however, isn't one of them.

from the Wiki:
"Original meaning
During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[58] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[59][60] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[61][62][63]"