I covered that point. If the person is truly a u.s. citizen then yes it just takes one. But if THAT ONE's claim (the alleged u.s. citizen parent) to being a u.s. citizen is that he/she was born here of an illegal. Then that one's u.s. citizenship is subject to further congressional and constitutional review. We have millions of kids born here of illegals who think they are u.s. citizens and are therefore able to produce another citizen through their status. All that is subject to further examination.
It's very easy to prove if an individual is a U.S. citizen or not at the time when a child is born. There are few instances a person claiming to be a U.S. citizen in order for their child to be a U.S. citizen -- since such a claim would be so easy to disprove. There is no real purpose in making this claim -- since if the child is born on U.S. soil, the child is a U.S. citizen even if both parents are not.
No. You are playing dumb to get a special remedial presentation of the arguments just for you. The question of whether simply being born on u.s. soil makes one a citizen is before the courts so your assertion that is is easy to determine whether a child is a citizen just by where they were born is not necessarily true. It will be if the courts side with you. The lefty script that you work from says you are supposed to continually chant that the U.S. Constitution/14th amendment guarantees it, but it does not. It has a qualifier in the languages that says that the newborn must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and arguably illegals are not. They are trespasser/invaders. Just as most other countries treat them. Chinese women arriving by the thousands to squat and go home with their new u/s. citizens is ridiculous. It is well established in u.s. law that children born of diplomats are not u.s. citizens and are not to treated that way because Congress has spoken on it and not deemed them as subject to the jurisdiction of the country. And the courts have upheld that. This is the likely fate of the illegals in the U.S. There is a reasonably good chance that the court will uphold the right of congress to declare which categories are considered to be subject to the jurisdiction just as they did for the children of diplomats. It is doubtful that the court would make anything retroactive but chances of them deferring to congress on this for future classifications are quite good. Of course anything requiring congressional action might require dem support or at least some of them and we know that they will want everything for illegals and nothing for true citizens so that is a headwind. But your simplified designation of anyone who squats here for an hour and gives birth and then heads out with a citizen is being challenged. Let me know when the children of diplomats are going to become citizens when you ready to repeat the claim that the constitution says that just being born here is enough.
Let me state it once again very clearly. EVERY SINGLE UPPER FEDERAL COURT DECISION WITHOUT EXCEPTION over the decades since the 14th Amendment was ratified has stated that a child born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is very clear - "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". This principle has been upheld in multiple court cases including ones by the Supreme Court, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark. There really is nothing more to discuss unless a new Constitutional Amendment is passed which states that child born on U.S. soil to non-US citizens is not a U.S. citizen. This is something I would support by the way.
It has been established that you are unable to follow the points being made, so the comment below are for others who are not hopeless. The courts have indeed established many times over that a child born on u.s. soil is a u.s. citizen BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NOT YET- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHILDREN OF DIPLOMATS DEFINED ANY OTHER CATEGORIES WHERE PERSONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. That does not mean it cannot. I have said multiple times over ad nauseum that I don't think the court will allow retroactive classification applying to previous births but- with this court- I am pretty damn sure that some justices will agree that Congress has the power. Whether the votes would be enough remains to be seen but it is certainly a possibility. Viewers will note further that GWB did not address the point I made to wit: He argues that every single person born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. Problem with that is the courts agree that congress can and has and does exempt the children of diplomats because...well....they have, just as I argue, the power to exempt certain individuals by defining them as "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the u.s. as required in the qualifying clause of the 14th Amendment. GWB believes that no other categories could every apply. That, for instance Congress could never be able to say that a Chinese hit and run birther who was here for 48 hours with the express purpose of getting citizenship could never be exempted because apparently.......according to his argument.....the children of diplomats is the one and only exemption Congress can define. Yup, gets only one shot at anything and once you take that their ticket is punched and they are done forever. OR NOT.
And there is at least a dozen categories where children born to a U.S. citizen parent overseas is a U.S. citizen -- including children of military members. Your meandering does not seem to have a point. The bottom line is that federal courts have regularly upheld without exception the 14th Amendment stating children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens. Congress nor the President can do anything about this or provide any "exemptions" to the 14th Amendment. There is nothing that Congress can "redefine" to change it --- because it will require a new Constitutional Amendment ratified by the necessary number of states to change. Case Closed.
It does not have a point that you can understand. Otherwise, viewers see my point completely. Not sure what you are doing in th at first sentence of your quote. Those categories about children born overseas/military etc are all set by Congress. And in fact have changed many times over the years, as decided by Congress. Which simply makes my point, not yours, that this is an arena where Congress has considerable jurisdiction and authority. How many years can an American citizen living overseas give birth to American citizen child if that child is born overseas with the parent? And what about the offspring American citizen, is a child of hers also a citizen? Heh. There is no answer. You have to see what year the person was born and what the congressional laws/rules were at the time. The Supreme Court does not dictate all that. That's why we have congress. The supreme court is certainly there for any egregious situation where a person is clearly born in the u.s. of a clearly u.s. parent clearly established in the u.s. Chinese birth tourists here for the week do not fall into that category and it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would replace its judgement for that of Congress.
Here is today's hint. ANY child born to a U.S. citizen parent overseas is a U.S. citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has resided in the U.S. or its territories at any point. A simple Google search will demonstrate this and provide all the links to references. "Yes, a child born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent can be a U.S. citizen, but it depends on specific requirements.If both parents are U.S. citizens and one of them has lived in the U.S. or its possessions at some point, the child automatically gains citizenship.If the child has at least one U.S. citizen parent and the U.S. citizen parent has met certain residency requirements in the U.S., the child may also acquire citizenship at birth" I have worked with many parents who had children overseas during work assignments, etc. All the children are automatically U.S. citizens -- even when only one of the parents is a U.S. citizen assuming the parent resided in the U.S. at some point. You really should have some concept of "Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA)" and the law before spouting nonsense. Once again, let's state the 14th Amendment states conclusively that a child born on U.S. is a U.S. citizen -- as supported in every upper Federal Court decision. Congress can not do anything to create exemptions to this Constitutional Amendment.
Jezzuss you are some fucking stupid on this topic which is above you thinking grade. /but as usual you like to go ten rounds to make sure that it is clear to everyone else that you are clueless. In regard to the conditions and overseas residency and when a child becomes a citizen etc - as I said previously- that is totally in the control of Congress, not the constitution, and further that that has changed many times over the years. Thus you need to know when the person was born in history. Congress is the one that changes it because it is in its jurisdiction. Thus we have statutes to go with all of that, today yesterday and further back in history duh. The point being- yet again- that many of these issues are in the hands of congress. Just as the issue of who "is subject to the jurisdiction of the u.s." is in the hands of congress. Stop trying to play lawyer by using google. You are looking stupid. There are complexities that the Supreme Court will need to wrestle with here regardless of which way it goes. Yeh, of course it is easy for you because you have google. No thinking or knowledge required by you and indeed you have none. Really. You are into some stupid shit. Give it a rest. How you coming along with your answer to my question about why the children of diplomats are not treated as citizens even though it is not in the constitution? This is my third time asking ya. Heh, we get it. The answer is not convenient for your argument and google can't help you. Time to move on to someone else. Maybe do a few rounds about Matt Gaetz or Ron Desantis. We know you can do it.
The issue has already been to the U.S. Supreme Court -- they have ruled in multiple cases that a child born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen as per the 14th Amendment. The MAGA crowd is welcome to try to bring a case regarding "birth citizenship" to the Supreme Court again -- which will once again rule as per specified in the 14th Amendment. This is nothing that Congress has any jurisdiction over. MAGA would be better off to focus on a new Constitutional Amendment which no longer allows "birthright citizenship" -- and states that one of the parents must be a U.S. citizen for a child to be a U.S. citizen.