Since Trump has made his announcement about ending birthright citizenship, there has been a lot of discussion on X about the topic. Many seem to think this is settled law. It is not. This debate between John Eastman and Ediberto Roman may be useful.
As I stated in my post the only thing one needs to read is the US Senate Debate of 1866 where they laid out the 14th Amendment. It clearly says you are a citizen if born on US soil, naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It clearly stated your parents had to be citizens. What more does one need to know. The 14th Amendment was meant to provide citizenship to the recently freed slaves and the debate also discussed the American Indians, Chinese in CA and gypsies in PA. The 14th does not provide blanket citizenship to everyone dropped on US soil. This has been a distortion to push an agenda by our government. They read the words with no understanding of their true meaning or intent and they don't really care. They are texturalists and our Constitution is a document held to the original intent. It is not a living document. It means today what it meant 200 years ago.
Since Trump has made his announcement about ending birthright citizenship, there has been a lot of discussion on X about the topic. Many seem to think this is settled law. It is not. This debate between John Eastman and Ediberto Roman may be useful.
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/304/
As I stated in my post the only thing one needs to read is the US Senate Debate of 1866 where they laid out the 14th Amendment. It clearly says you are a citizen if born on US soil, naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It clearly stated your parents had to be citizens. What more does one need to know. The 14th Amendment was meant to provide citizenship to the recently freed slaves and the debate also discussed the American Indians, Chinese in CA and gypsies in PA. The 14th does not provide blanket citizenship to everyone dropped on US soil. This has been a distortion to push an agenda by our government. They read the words with no understanding of their true meaning or intent and they don't really care. They are texturalists and our Constitution is a document held to the original intent. It is not a living document. It means today what it meant 200 years ago.