Trump is Fighting to End Birthright Citizenship. Let’s Look at the History.

Senator Jacob Howard, who authored the birthright language in the 14th amendment, further explained on the floor of the Senate, "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."

When it comes to understanding the intent of the framers... this couldn't be much clearer.

Someone popping out a baby while on US soil should not automatically give the baby US citizenship.

If their parent(s) did not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, the 14th Amendment does not apply, leaving the matter an open policy issue. Which should be decided by law or Amendment. Executive order for now, but get it emplaced in the law!

I agree with Trump. It’s time for the supreme court to weigh in on the issue and if they disagree, congress should pursue a an amendment to the constitution.

I liked what Germany did. My husband and I lived in Germany for 2.5 years. He worked on US Air Forces bases maintain computer systems for flight training 'machines'. I gave birth to our second daughter when we had been there 2 years. She received a German Birth Certificate, but we were told that at her age of 21 she had the right to become either an American Citizen or German Citizen - at least she was given the choice (she chose American!) Still has a German birth certificate but is an American citizen! AT LEAST SHE WAS ABLE TO COME HOME WITH US, AND IN THE FUTURE WAS GIVEN HER CHOICE!

It's a pretty simple scam, known as "anchor babies". Illegal non-citizen parents birth a child on American soil and they are bestowed citizenship, tada!! Sorry, not remotely legal or valid on it's face. We waste to much time playing games in the corrupt court systems for things that unequivocally answer themselves. Playing boy-scout in this country has gotten the Patriots nowhere on many instances, and this might wind up being just another example. Is it really wrong to bypass a corrupt bureaucracy and compromised judicial system to do what's right for this country?? In reality, you're doing We the People a disservice by even entertaining any of these Leftist driven notions that hold absolutely no merit. If Trump and his administration are truly here to actually clean-up the Swamp and put the American People first, he best understand that and get to work..

If both parents are in this country illegally then their children born here have no right to U S citizenship.

I am not a lawyer but the language of the 14th Amendment seems to have two qualifying elements that must be met before citizenship can, could or would be granted: They must be born in the United States...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Citizenship carries responsibilities as well as providing benefits. Illegal immigrants born in the U.S can claim the benefits despite their parents never having met or being eligible to meet any citizenship associated responsibilities. Further, while the child may be a U.S. citizen, the parents are not. If the parents owe allegiance to a different country, the child will likely also do so; further eroding compliance with the second element-"subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If the parents seek to become naturalized citizens, then the child, born in the U.S. could legally claim "birthright citizenship", in my opinion.

Someone popping out a baby while on US soil should not automatically give the baby US citizenship.

It's often helpful to exagerate in order to stress a point: imagine an alien craft landed, an alien stepped out and suddenly split in half - duplicating itself. Question is: would the newest half instantly become a US citizen in your view?

As self-appointed emperor of the formerly United States, I declare the preposterous interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be referring to wailing newborns. Nor does it bear ANY relationship to the latitude/longitude of ANY occurring birth. The phrase quite clearly pertains SOLELY to the PARENT/PARENTS of said newborn. If THEY are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," "thereof" being the empire over which I preside. If I (including my laws) don't consider at least ONE of said parents as having been FORMALLY INVITED TO MY PARTY, yes, MY party, then I shall dump them in the worst possible place outside my empire, as either I or my duly appointed representative might determine.

But I'm not the emperor, fortunately.

Unfortunately. Simple is usually best.

Birthright citizenship should not be automatic merely because a child of a foreign citizen is born within our borders. It doesn't make sense. If a woman from a foreign country comes here and becomes pregnant or is already pregnant and gives birth within the United States, and the mother retains her illegal status while in this country and does not show any desire to become an American Citizen and is willing to give up her foreign citizenship and show allegiance to this country, the child should not become a citizen. If the mother applies for citizenship, that would show an intent to become an American and and fall jurisdiction of the United States. Upon receiving a green card she can then apply for her child's citizenship. As long as she is a citizen of a foreign country and owes allegiance to that country, her child should not have the right to automatically become a citizen of this country. Her child will most likely have the same affiliation that his foreign-born mother has.

"Supporters of mass migration often view birthright citizenship as a way to make becoming an American accessible to everyone." Simply defined- DEMOCRATS

I believe SCOTUS will provide a majority decision either 5/4 or 6/3 that Trumps interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the "jurisdiction" clause is correct. Such a ruling may have a major impact on future immigration reforms.

Seems SCOTUS decided this in 1898. Only legal, not illegal, can have birthright. Today's court should agree with that ruling, as do President Trump... and I.