14th Amendment, Pt. IIa Sec. (B1015zillow)

Not sure what your point is – are you saying that because Congress can pass a statute granting citizenship to children born of American parents outside the US, Congress can also pass a statute that conflicts with the 14th Amendment? Because that’s not how the law works.

Whether we like it or not, the 14th Amendment could not be more clear: Anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US (which means anybody who is not protected under diplomatic status) is, per the constitution, a US citizen by birth.

Don’t like it? Amend the Constitution then. But neither Congress nor the President have the authority to make laws that are in clear and direct conflict with the Constitution, and that’s a GOOD thing.

I love how the Dems throw crap like the Invasion “Caravan”, the fake bomber and other lovely things their propoganda arm can use.

Then Trump throws them a curve ball and they all go insane, start running around, calling in experts and use up news cycles so it is now at the top of the news.

All the other Smoke and Mirrors fade back. Love it and they play into his hands, time after time.

Let’s just be honest. Citizenship should be earned. Being born is not something that earns one anything. Being 18 or 21 is not something that should anyone anything.

The concept of citizenship in Starship Troopers is looking better and better…if…we can also have the discipline of the military in that book…

Can you imagine a world in which the fakers and other dick weeds could not succeed?

United States v Wong Kim Ark(1898)
‘..that a child born to foreign citizens here permanently and “legally” becomes a citizen of the US by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution’
I put the quotes around legally. Maybe this is what POTUS is hanging his hat on?

In the book: “The Conservative Case for Trump”, Phyllis Schlafly explained:
“With Donald Trump as president, the clear intent of the Fourteenth Amendment can be reinforced. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to overturn the Dred Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared African Americans could not be citizens. It had nothing to do with offering citizenship to the children of foreign nationals. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment did not even apply to American Indians, because they were “subject to the jurisdiction” of their tribal governments. Congress did not grant citizenship to American Indians on reservations until 1924, fifty-six years later.” (page 19-20)

Part II “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution[.]” That’s how the Supreme Court framed the issue in Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The court explained that nowhere in the Constitution is citizenship or citizen defined and, in the absence of a definition, the court would look primarily to English common law for guidance. (And this is where it gets interesting.) In doing so, the court looked back nearly 300 years to Calvin’s Case (a/k/a the Case of the Postnati) and wrote this: “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.” I’m going to repeat a line from that, sans the Latin: “Such allegiance and protection were mutual… Read more »

Part IV The Constitution nowhere vests decision making regarding immigration or citizenship determinations in the executive branch. That power belongs to Congress. But Congress does not run the agencies it creates and funds: bureaucrats do. Executive branch agencies are empowered, by law, to establish operating procedures. The idea is that Congress passes a law and, within that law, an agency is charged to give effect to the policy within that law by promulgating appropriate regulation. Technically, all regulations are to stay within the policy boundary lines, or scope, of the enabling statute, but the lines are rarely sharp and clear. As a result, rulemaking by an agency frequently appears to be lawmaking and, as a practical matter, sometimes is. Law and regulation are not the only licenses and constraints under which executive branch agencies operate. There are also executive orders. An executive order is exactly that, an order, in writing, issued by the nation’s chief executive that directs an executive branch agency to do something or to cease doing something. The constitutional authority for executive orders traces to Article 2, Section 3 which, in part, mandates that the chief executive “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Perhaps the most infamous executive order was order 9066. It was issued by FDR and authorized the internment of Americans of Japanese dissent. On the flip side, perhaps the most famous directive issued by a chief executive came from Lincoln. We call it the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1948, Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, effectively abolishing segregation in the military. The point is not to argue the directives, or edicts, but to illustrate the tremendous power that can be wielded by a president through the executive order. Through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Congress expressly gave the chief executive much authority in the area of immigration. In fact, Congress effectively, but conditionally, gave the president its power to make certain decisions regarding who may be admitted to the country. Here’s a cite to the 1972 case in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Attorney General to bar… Read more »