The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to enforce an executive order signed by President Donald Trump ending birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States. In a trio of near-identical filings by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, the administration urged the justices to partially block preliminary injunctions, issued by federal district judges in Seattle, Maryland, and Massachusetts, that bar the government from implementing Trump’s executive order anywhere in the country.
Your assumption is incorrect; birthright citizenship is not the only way to become a citizen. Those who are naturalized through means other than by birthright, and all of their offspring, wouldn’t be affected.
For example, my wife became a citizen after immigrating here. Her daughter, born after my wife was naturalized, would be a citizen automatically because she was born to a citizen. Birthright citizenship is not a factor in this example.
Likewise, I would not be affected as my ancestors naturalized through whatever process existed back then, not birthright citizenship. Their children (my great grandparents) weren’t citizens because they were born in the US, they were citizens because their parents were citizens.
Is there anything in law that states a child is a citizen through something other than birthright citizenship? I don’t believe that every country grants citizenship to children automatically.
There’s basically two methods worldwide for children to become citizens easily - you’re born there, or your parents are citizens from there.
You’re born there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Your parents are citizens:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
Thanks - I’m still trying to figure out what it all means
The real issue is “subject to the jurisdiction”.
People “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law are constitutionally guaranteed a number of rights. Importantly, they are afforded due process, and all other rights due someone accused of a crime.
Not everyone is guaranteed 5th amendment protections. In a “Red Dawn” situation, where the Russians/North Koreans launch an airborne invasion of the US, those enemy combatants are not subject to US laws; they are not guaranteed the rights of the criminally accused.
Any rights and privileges they have are conveyed via treaty, not constitution. Hague Convention. Geneva Conventions. Laws of Armed Conflict. None of these guarantee “Due Process”. None of these guarantee access to the judicial system.
One more piece of the puzzle: The Posse Commitatus Act. This law prohibits the US military, (and the National Guard, when federalized) from directly engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.
Trump wants to use the military to handle immigration issues.
Texas has already declared immigrants to be “invaders”. Trump’s campaign was not using hyperbole when it was talking about an “invasion”.
Trump wants a “war”. He wants a shooting war on the southern border, and he’s going to use the immigrant “invasion” to justify it.