That is the extreme irony about the situation. The citizens you want would be the ones who come here to work illegally. Not the ones who come because their family can get them on the dole. I am going to start a thread on this.
Big hole in his argument... "Illegals don't get welfare benefits at American tax payer expense." Oh, really??
I would argue it is the original intent but that congress has authority over jurisdiction. I will say it again, discontinuing birthright citizenship invalidates the majority of Americans as legal citizens.
It would have to be grandfathered in.... Otherwise you'd have to invalidate the citizenship of anyone that couldn't trace their ancestry to Ellis island.
And that’s the rub. Theoretically, Trump can not make a law that says parentage is the deciding factor in citizenship, even though there are exclusions that allow for a parentage claim. So if birthright is a law of negative rights, meaning the government has no authority in the area, then a constitutional amendment would be needed to not invalidate all of our citizenship.
Really. Their children may get welfare benefits but they would have to be citizens to get the benefits.
To me this falls under ex post facto. Once Citizenship has been granted it will not be revoked. But proceeding forward everyone would have to qualify (what ever that would be). Then the question arises what to do with DACA and those already seeking legitimate citizenship in the system. Regardless of which side of the line you stand the status quo is unacceptable. The line has to be drawn at some point and said no more. Where we draw that line and who will be included should be the debate, not do we continue this open border crap.
So your saying if the Supreme Court overturns same sex marriage all the same sex marriages stay on the books?