Scotus agrees to hear birthright citizenship case

We ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. And the intention was for it to provide citizenship to any person born in the U.S. who was subject to her jurisdiction. That included people who came here illegally.

While that is mostly correct, it is not exactly correct. There were enslaved people who were brought here illegally after we banned the importation of enslaved people in 1807 (effective in 1808). There is no dispute that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to provide those people and their descendants citizenship. Additionally, California passed a law in 1858 that prohibited Chinese people from immigrating there (the state supreme court struck it down four years later). Yet, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment agreed that the children of Chinese immigrants would also benefit from birthright citizenship (example below).

 

No it wasn’t. Because it’s express language was not limited to children of slaves. It has had the same meaning and understanding historically since 1868. This case should be quick, easy and 9-0. I am predicting 7-2

 

The diplomat has immunity. The non-diplomat terrorist does not

 

Think about what you are saying, bro ....if they are not subject to our laws, then what law are they breaking by being here?