Wrong.

That is not even what is going on here.
People need to pay closer attention.

This is NOT about "changing" the 14th Amendment - it is about going by what it actually says and means and what is was written to mean,
and which the whole country understood and went by - until the 1960s liberal takeover.

>>>>>>Are people even aware that the U.S. is the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that allows non citizens to have a baby on
its soil and the child is automatically a citizen???

There is no other country in the world that allows that.
And ours didn't until the 1960s.
And there is nothing in any of the federal immigration laws that allow for it.
It has been PURELY a matter of interpretation and application by those in power in Washington.

The 14th obviously needs rewording. I think we can all agree on that. If a cross section of knowledgeable and good people on Aldeer can disagree on the definition of words and what they mean, then it needs correction to remove doubt.

In 1981, an illegal who was here outside of any lawful entry who gave birth 1 inch inside the border did not have citizenship granted to that child at birth merely based on the geographic location of the birth.. Same in 1950, 1920, 1899...etc...That was the law of the land based on the Constitution. So what changed? The Brennan footnote in 1982 erased all of that.

It makes no logical or rational sense for our nation, founded the way it was and standing for what it is, to give away consent to illegals.

Also, I'd love for the current court to rule on it again. If Brennan can change the whole concept of citizenship with a footnote in 1982, then the current Scotus can change it back to what it meant for the 100+ years prior to that decision. There is plain meaning in that too.

If everyone here is under the full "subject to the jurisdiction", then why even have that language in there if it is so plain?
If everyone here, legal or illegal is under the full " subject to the jurisdiction", then why can't illegals vote or hold office legally? Why...because there is a correct process of consent that has to be followed for citizenship and the privileges and rights that come with it.

I'll have to just respectfully agree to disagree.
Great discussion guys.

Not all people here are subject to our jurisdiction. Diplomatic personnel for instance. Under the jurisdiction of, doesn't mean they have all the rights of a citizen.

Pretty soon, all you'll have to do is walk onto US soil and be bestowed full citizenship.
Pedro climbs out of the Rio Grand, gets issues an EBT card, Voter ID, Free college tuition, and a subscription to Oprah Magazine.

Cuban citizens already get this benefit. Once they touch American soil, they cannot be deported.

You guys want to agree with your interpretation of the amendment or some scholar you you agree with, but when the left uses the same arguments and uses legal scholars, you say they are wrong, they want activist judges, they are taking our rights. You can't have it both ways. The constitution is what the constitution says and it doesn't change over time.

I do not like that part of the 14th amendment. But, it is there and it is clear from the plain meaning of the words what it means. You have to look at the plain meaning of the words, not what you opine was the intent. I have always been an admirer of Hugo Black who said, he would vigorously defend the "plain meaning" of the constitution.

I heard a stat on the radio a bit ago that 7% of the births in the US per year are from illegal immigrants. That's unsustainable.

Not at all unsustainable. Haven't you noticed how Congress runs up the national debt?

By the way, we are not the only country that has birthright citizenship. Canada does too. So to most central and South America countries.

By the way, we are not the only country that has birthright citizenship. Canada does too. So to most central and South America countries.

If nothing else; Trump has bad timing. Pick your battles