Jindal joins Trump in urging end to birthright citizenship

On Tuesday, Florida Sen. “I’m open to doing things that prevent people from coming to the U.S.to take advantage of 14th Amendment, but I’m not in favor of repealing it”, he said at the Iowa State Fair.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal tweeted that the right should be curtailed, while South Carolina Sen. It further held that the “Fourteenth Amendment… has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship” and that it is ‘throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.

They’re probably grasping at straws; elsewhere in the opinion, the court implies that the only U.S.-born children not “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country were the offspring of foreign diplomats or foreign occupiers. That’s a legitimate problem and there’s a targeted way you can deal with this.

Multiple immigration law professors interviewed by CBS News said ending birthright citizenship would involve passing an amendment to change the Constitution. I’m living the American Dream, but they want to take it away from me and people like me. As Congressional Research Service reports, the Nationality Act of 1940 “finally and unambiguously declared all Native Americans born in the United States to be U.S. citizens”.

The issue of citizenship was brought into focus by a Supreme Court ruling in 1857 that essentially declared that blacks – even the daughters and sons of freed slaves – were not U.S. citizens. The Republican frontrunner (?!) wants to erase the key 14th Amendment provision which awards U.S citizenship to all babies born on American soil.

Yale Law Professor Peter Schuck explained it this way in a 2010 New York Times op-ed: “The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent”. Stock is a distinguished immigration lawyer who has helped frame a lot of the understanding around the legal status of immigrants among those serving in the US military.

Chris Christie: “I think all this stuff needs to be reexamined in light of the current circumstances”, he told Laura Ingraham this month. Trump followed up the release by saying, “We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go”, implying that not only would he end birthright citizenship, he would either retroactively revoke it for American-born children of immigrants or deport them despite of their legal status.

Mark Levin: Birthright Citizenship Is A “Nut-Job Policy.” In 2010, conservative radio host Mark Levin claimed “the Constitution does not provide for” birthright citizenship and called it a “nut-job policy”.

In other words, even though Wong’s parents were “subjects of the Emperor of China”, non-citizens, and indeed not eligible to become U.S. citizens, at birth he became a citizen of the United States.

It’s common for at least one lawmaker to introduce legislation each year that would deny automatic citizenship to a baby born to immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally.

How can it be changed?

Bill O’Reilly: Birthright Citizenship “Has Got To Change”. “And that concept has recurred at different times in American history, but the whole point of the 14th Amendment was to say no, we’re just going to have one rule for everybody, regardless of their race”.

The 14th Amendment states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside“. “But the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof“, is the subject of a significant amount of legal scholarship…”

All of these efforts have faced a formidable obstacle: the Constitution of the United States.

Immigration supporters say there’s a reason the issue hasn’t come up before the Supreme Court since 1898 – and it’s because it’s settled.

Donald Trump is calling his proposal, “Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again”.

Which side is right, ultimately would have to be determined by the Supreme Court, Feere said.

In 1993, Nevada Sen. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.