Posted on 07/08/2023 12:34:08 PM PDT by piytar
Vivek Ramaswamy said this week that he supports ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
"I think for a period of time it’s going to be necessary in this country, because you have an influx of migrants across that southern border, fourteen thousand-plus a day by some estimates crossing that southern border. That is not a rule of law, that is the abandonment of the rule of law," he said on CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So soon. Our hero’s.
“Ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants gains steam”
The electorate: What took you so long?
Republican politicians: This is not the hill to die on.
ANYONE who is against this change is an ENEMY OF AMERICA… IMHO, of course.
And how does he want to do it? Congress won’t pass such an act. If - by some miracle - it did, the courts would find it unconstitutional. Even Clarence Thomas’s clerks are divided on this issue. The rest of the legal world? Forget about it.
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZGzbVrvoy4
14th Amendment irony: “Natural born” meant slaves born in America. “Citizen” meant these folk born in America should have been citizens all along.
And, make it retroactive. Enough nonsense.
They would only die, but gain nothing. It has zero chance in courts. Even some of Clarence Thomas’s clerks believe that it is unconstitutional. And Clarence Thomas’s clerks are as conservative as it gets. Unlike Scalia, he doesn’t want clerks who oppose his views.
here’s a clue...
there’s never been ‘birth right citizenship’ in the US.
your citizenship is through your parents. period.
anything else is complete fiction made up by the left.
“ there’s never been ‘birth right citizenship’ in the US.”
Not true. If you are born on US soil you are automatically eligible for US citizenship. It’s why so many pregnant women from third world countries, especially China, take US vacations late in their pregnancy. Then there are pregnant women crossing the border too to give birth on US soil.
The SCOTUS needs to correctly interpret the words “subject to the jurisdiction” to exclude a child born here from a foreign national in the country illegally.
Please review section 1 of the 14th amendment, then get back to us with your interpretation of what it means.
if they do it at all they need to make it retroactive a few decades or it’s pointless.
I think line 3 of the post you replied too may answer your confusion?
it was made up along the way, likely not original intent of Founders/constitution and for good reasons.
Need to be retroactive
What does 1% fat boy say?
No confusion. It’s the law. I wasn’t commenting on how the law came into being, constitutionally or unconstitutionally, but that’s where it stands today.
America is one of those weird places, were you can break the law by being here illegally, and give birth and gain benefits. That's nuts.
Someone just needs to force the issue into the court system, which I would think would not be that hard to do. Some state government entity just needs to deny someone citizenship status, the ACLU will sue, and away we go. This is the kind of serious issue that the Supreme Court is for.
It’s the law?
No it’s not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.