I am not doubting there are some rainbows and gumdrops promised but I would throw 2 things up for consideration.
I know you are just picking at raj, but anchor babies bother me also.
They are probably the strongest argument both sides of the aisle consider in deportation.
I don’t see the US as the world’s orphanage unlike a “conservative” like you does.
What is the origin of the “anchor baby” argument? It seems our betters attempt to tie it in with the 14th Amendment; however, Elk v. Wilkins(years after that Amendment) said otherwise. Was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 an unnecessary and redundant act?
If additional legislation was needed merely to extend citizenship to Indians born within the territory of the United States, due to their tribal allegiance; then, surely, additional legislation is needed to extend citizenship to children born to subjects of a foreign government who have come to reside in the U.S. in violation of federal law…right?
Direct from the 14th
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside
super hard for any legal entity to refute “anchor babies” for this reason alone. very cut and dry language
It’s not as simple as it seems. We had the “What constitutes a citizen?” debate a few months back. I think it was in regards to Ted Cruz being born in Canada. Thread went in circles.
Especially if you ignore, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
Well, no - it is driven by the person’s place of birth. Indians not born in the US need legislation to extend them citizenship, hence the Indian Citizenship Act; an Indian child would not if that child was born in the US.
Are they not subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Are they immune to arrest? Deportation?
Prob is it doesn’t matter if it’s not as simple as it seems. In the court system they don’t have to “interpret” the law here, it’s spelled out explicitly. To rephrase something like this would require the SCOTUS to rule against anchor babies, which isn’t going to ever happen (because to a legal mind, this is 100% clear).
I’m not following. Are you saying the ICA conferred citizenship upon foreign-born Indians?
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
Again, Indians were not in the US in violation of federal law; yet, more than the 14th Amendment was apparently required to ensure them of citizenship.
Back to the thread topic.
So you take the position that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is redundant, right?
And here’s what happened this past weekend. Discussing national security on the terrace of Mar-a-Lago among resort members.
Any paper I have read that take a con stance to birthright citizenship, seem to lay blame on the author on the 14th. A failure to get it in writing, of the notion that a child whose parents were subject to another country, would also be subject to that country.
Likely, no huge challenge has risen here for multitude of reasons - the wording is seemingly too imprecise, immigrants were previously swallowed up by an ever expanding economy, liberals perhaps have their own motives to see massive immigration for political gain, globalist businessmen liked a source of cheaper labor locally based, societal aversion to turning away ‘starving’ children.
I believe the effect of anchor babies is negative in a multiplicative fashion: baby, parents, their relatives, and more babies. Plus the word is out - here is your immigration ticket.
I would like to see it clarified at Amendment level, just like l would the 2nd A (pro gun btw).
If only all of the Constitution were read that cut and dry. “Shall not be infringed” seems to be ambiguous to many legal minds.
(Not trying to drag the thread off into no man’s land. Just an observation.)
In what way would it being redundant matter? Half the legal code is redundant
I read something about that earlier today, re his phone records didn’t jibe with his story.
Don’t like Petraeus as a substitute though.
I agree, the 2A is cut and dried in that it does not guarantee an individual’s right bear arms outside of the context of being a member of a regular military unit. The Heller decision was a stunning bit of judicial overreach, of legislating-from-the-bench.
(Another observation not intended to drag the thread off-topic.)
Out of 4000 posts this thread? 
Here is some late evening frivolity for you