Is Ending Birthright Citizenship Constitutional?

October 31st, 2018 | by Super Admin
Is Ending Birthright Citizenship Constitutional?
News
8

Fox’s senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called President Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional.

Napolitano stated, “This has not been a serious debate other than in academic circles. In fact, the 14th Amendment has been in the Constitution for 150 years. For 150 years, without exception, it has been consistently interpreted to mean whoever is born here is an American citizen.”

“Let me tell you why this amendment was written, it was written for two reasons: One, to make a clear and unambiguous constitutional reversal of one of the worst Supreme Court opinions in history, Dred Scott v. Sanford, which said that African-Americans are not persons and not citizens. Two, it was to stop the southern states from the beginnings of Jim Crow, ‘The slaves are free, but we’re still are not going to treat them as people, we’re not going to treat them as citizens! Oh, yeah?’ Everybody born here is a citizen, so says the Constitution.”

  • Pete

    “Fruit of the piosoness tree” is a possible legal statute to use. If the “evidentiary tree (illegal alien parents) is tainted, so is the fruit (children born to them within our borders)”. It probably makes too much sense for the legal system …….

  • Albert L Biele

    The 14-amendment giving citizenship to babies born in the USA, was initiated after the civil war to assure former black slaves receive citizenship, When the Southern democrats denied blacks citizenship, the house and senate rallied a 75% vote to pass Amendment 14, to assure their citizenship. All foreigners, and or, illegal immigrants are not included in the14th amendment. Do you really believe our stateman intended to give a visiting pregnant woman, who birth a child, during their visit in the USA, citizenship? I think not!

  • Ralph Sinamon

    Napolitano is wrong! It NEVER was Constitutional! It was however an abuse of the 14th Amendment!

  • Babsan

    This Amendment has been bastardized by the Democrats too.It was NEVER meant for tourists or people who are NOT under American authority i.e citizens and legally admitted resident.No tourists or Illegals are covered by the XIVth.

  • Timothy Toroian

    uck ’em. Change the immigration laws to remove this horse hockey of chain migration parents or not!

  • JDWemhaner

    it is part of the constitution and cannot be removed without proper procedures. Does corrupt Donald think he is king, like he was as CEO? Well, he is not and this government was built on a balance of powers.

    • Ralph Sinamon

      Oops! It is NOT part of the Constitution!

  • kathy regel

    from what I understand the baby would be a citizen, the parents are not considered a citizen until child petitions them after he or she turns 21, to be able to apply for citizenship. To do it legally, the parents would have to return to their own place of origin, with the child until child becomes an adult and does so. The child can come and go anytime as a citizen.