What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers
When the SCOTUS rules that illegals are covered by the 14th then any law that contradicts it will be struck down. The only way to change this is an amendment to the Constitution that spells out that they are not covered. That is how these things work.
- - - Updated - - -
And airplanes and ships have extra special powers when it comes to a wall as well.
What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers
It's not a law, it's a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch would have to officially propose a constitutional amendment removing birthright citizenship from illegals. That's a mandatory 2/3's majority vote from both the house and senate. They could do this right now, as a proposed amendment is a "joint resolution" and the president plays no part in it. Then, the Archivist of the US sends each state's governor a letter of notification. Each state then puts the amendment through their legislature. 38 or more of the states have to ratify it for it to become an amendment to the US Constitution.
That's extremely unlikely.
Any law passed without a constitutional amendment that denied birthright citizenship to anyone who's entitled to it would be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Of course, although only 1 is practical. And which one could it be?
Could it be the wall surrounding a solitary building that is under 24/7 surveillance by security cameras, secret service, and only the government knows what else.
Or could it be the TWO FUCKING THOUSAND MILE WALL that will have the same surveillance as the abandoned warehouse down the street from my home. The one all the homeless people live in with the sign that says "no loitering."
I would let you choose, but clearly logic isn't your strong suit. So I will give you a hint, it's not the 2,000 mile wall.
What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers
@Bsloney. the 14th amendment actually empowers congress to deny birthright citizenship to those who are born to foreign nationals.
While many erroneously claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, the reality is that is not the law and has never been the law. Current immigration law–found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)–specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.
read the rest for yourself. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-citizenship/
Section 1: 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. 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.
Pretty cut and dry to me
The reason that children of these folks cannot claim birthright citizenship is the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US given their positions. Illegals are subject and hence their children gain birth right citizenship. Any law challenging this will fail given the ruling of the SCOTUS. You want it changed an amendment to the Constitution will be needed.
What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers
No, because you are ignoring the further clarification. The 14th amendment actually gives congress the right to deny birthright citizens to children born of foreign nationals.
Don't be lazy. Read the rest of the article.
- - - Updated - - -
No, they're subject to the jurisdiction of their own country. There is no "given their positions" either in the constitution or otherwise.
I don't think it's going to fail. You didn't bother reading the rest of the article, did you?
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think we're going to need to. Once they find they can't get jobs, govt. assistance, or automatic citizenship for their children, I think they'll go home on their own.
1. 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. 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.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 6/13/1866
Ratified 7/9/1868
No they aren't. The emigrated to another country where they are subject to it's jurisdiction. If they weren't they wouldn't be worried about being caught and kicked out.
"Given their positions" is explained in the SCOTUS ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Suggest you actually read it as opposed to regurgitating the nonsense of others.
Any attempt at a law will fail given that ruling. I gather given your posts you do not understand how this whole law-SCOTUS thing works. Using a Brietbart article does not change that.
What are we gonna do now? Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men To be young believers