Defenders of birthright citizenship claim that the 14th Amendment supports their position. The Amendment states, “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.

Only if you believe these newborns of non-citizens are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". They're not.

So just another day in America!

14th was made for Slaves and should be left at that. No other nation upon this earth does such a thing! We are still paying the price for slavery! Will it ever end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only if you believe these newborns of non-citizens are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". They're not.

"Subuject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to U.S. laws. Unless the child is imbued with immunity from our laws by being the child of an officially recognized diplomat or visiting royalty, the child is subject to our laws. That is very well settled law.

Trump is just trolling again. This is simply beyond the power of an executive order.

14th was made for Slaves and should be left at that.

Wrong, as clearly and explicitly demonstrated the by contemporary congressional debate on the amendment.

No other nation upon this earth does such a thing!

Wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Jus soli, meaning "right of the soil", commonly referred to as birthright citizenship in the United States, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.

Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of continental Europe. Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas, but it is rare elsewhere. Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.

Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.

Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness. Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to persons born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons. The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that "Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality."

National laws

Lex soli is a law used in practice to regulate who and under what circumstances an individual can assert the right of jus soli. Most states provide a specific lex soli—in application of the respective jus soli—and it is the most common means of acquiring nationality. However, a frequent exception to lex soli is imposed when a child is born to a parent in the diplomatic or consular service of another state on a mission to the state in question.

Unrestricted jus soli

• Antigua and Barbuda: Guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Argentina
• Barbados: Guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Barbados Ministry of Labour & Immigration recently proposed ending automatic birthright citizenship.
• Belize
• Bolivia
• Brazil (requires that the foreign parents are not working for their country's government in Brazil by the time the child is born).
• Canada: Subsection 3(2) of the Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada is not granted to a child born in Canada if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parents were diplomats, the nationality or immigration status of the parents do not matter. Some Conservative Party members wish to end birthright citizenship in Canada to the children of tourists and unauthorized immigrants.
• Chad (The choice to take Chadian citizenship, or that of the parents is made at 18 years of age.)
• Chile
• Costa Rica (Jus sangui requires registration with the Costa Rican government before the age of twenty-five)
• Dominica
• Ecuador
• El Salvador
• Fiji
• Grenada
• Guatemala
• Guyana
• Honduras
• Jamaica
• Lesotho
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Pakistan
• Panama
• Paraguay
• Peru (registration required at 18 years of age)
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Tanzania: Per the Tanzania Citizenship Act of 1995, "any child born within the borders of the United Republic of Tanzania, on or after Union Day, 26 April 1964, is granted citizenship of Tanzania, except for children of foreign diplomats."
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tuvalu
• United States: The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, provides: "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."[37] The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory, and thus this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to a U.S.-born person based on the alienage of his or her parents.[38][39] (see United States nationality law).
• Uruguay
• Venezuela

"Subuject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to U.S. laws.

Then that would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. Jurisdiction means an exclusive “allegiance” to the United States and not to any other foreign government.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Since birthright citizenship was implemented by executive fiat, it can be cancelled by executive fiat.

14th amendment birth right was about slaves. It got perverted like most laws. We will just have to disagree on this.

If we just keep allowing people to come here and claim they kicked out a baby on US soil the only way this ends is with America collapsing in to chaos. We will have 70% of the people uneducated unskilled living off the backs of the middle class causing it to collapse. US is about the middle class. Not the rich or the poor.

Then that would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. Jurisdiction means an exclusive “allegiance” to the United States and not to any other foreign government.

Well then if we are to include diplomats into that, especially foreign diplomats, then I believe they are suable as persons and the legal argument of diplomatic immunity may no longer be a defense from personal liability.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to U.S. laws.

Then that would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. Jurisdiction means an exclusive “allegiance” to the United States and not to any other foreign government.

No. That is just pure unsupported birther nonsense.

Accredited diplomats are immune from our laws. Their children who happen to be born here are also immune from our laws. Accredited diplomats can lose their accreditation and be ordered to leave, but they cannot be prosecuted.

Two illegal aliens are not mentioned in the text of the 14th Amendment. The citizenship status of the parents is not mentioned or relevant. A child born in the United States, without reference to the parents, if born subject to the laws of the United States, is a natural born citizen of the United States.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" has nothing to do with "an exclusive “allegiance” to the United States." If illegal aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could kill you and rape your wife and daughters, and could not be prosecuted for it.

Since birthright citizenship was implemented by executive fiat, it can be cancelled by executive fiat.

The 14th amendment is very clear, and it did not issue from executive fiat. Amendment or annulment of the Constitution is not with the power executive orders or congressional legislation.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The language of the CRA was not adopted as an amendment to the Constitution. The language of the amendment counts and the CRA does not. The people did not ratify the CRA.

The only thing the USSC said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.

This is pure unsupported birther nonsense.

The Supreme Court was very clear in what it stated:

[C]itizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

649 U.S. 702

"The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the Emperor of China. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says,"

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted, by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that"

"all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

649 U.S. 695

That the question before the court was clearly framed is shown by the briefs. The brief of appellant provided:

This is an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and is taken from the judgment of that court, discharging the respondent on habeas corpus cum causa from the custody of the collector of port of San Francisco, who refused to permit the respondent to land in the United States for the reason that he is a Chinese laborer and within the inhibitory provisions of the Chinese exclusion act. The respondent claimed exemption from that act upon the ground that he was born within the United States, and thereby becase ipso facto a citizen thereof. The Government, while conceding the fact of birth, denied the conclusion of citizenship in that respect, contending that as the respondent was born of alien parents, to wit, subjects of the Emperor of China, he was at birth a subject of China, claimed by that nation to be such, and therefore was not when born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning and intent of the Constitution.

Appellant's Brief at 39.

That was the losing side whose argument was rejected. The brief of Wong Kim Ark, the winning side provided:

The single question presented upon this appeal is this: Are the children born in this country of alien residents not connected with the diplomatic service citizens of the United States?

Respondent's Brief at 4. This was from the brief of the winning side. The court answered this question in the affirmative.

Just because the court turned activist doesn't make it right, in my book.

The Court did not turn activist. The clear text of the 14th Amendment is obvious and undeniable, and the Court refused to adopt a meaning which is not there. THAT would be activist.

14th amendment birth right was about slaves. It got perverted like most laws. We will just have to disagree on this.

The 14th Amendment was not just about slaves. The debates made explicit references to Chinese, Gypsies, Irish, Germans and Europeans in general. The text does not say a mumbling word about slaves or make the slightest reference to slaves. In fact, slavery was abolished the the 13th Amendment.

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.

It refers to "all persons," not all black persons or all former slaves. There are only two set conditions, being born in the United States, and being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Amendment did not change existing citizenship law at that time, but it did place it beyond the reach of the legislature.

People born in the U.S. were considered U.S. citizens by virtue of their birth, even though born to European aliens. The children of said aliens did not get naturalized. If these children were not citizens at birth, much of today's citizens of European ancestry would be aliens because somewhere down in the family tree someone was the child of aliens who did not get naturalized. As the Supreme Court stated,

To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

649 U.S. 694

Jus soli came to the colonies and the United States via British common law. It has always been the law in the United States.

If we just keep allowing people to come here and claim they kicked out a baby on US soil the only way this ends is with America collapsing in to chaos. We will have 70% of the people uneducated unskilled living off the backs of the middle class causing it to collapse. US is about the middle class. Not the rich or the poor.

An amendment was adopted. As the 21st Amendment demonstrated, if the people so choose, they can repeal one amendment with another amendment.

If President Trump can repeal the 14th Amendment with an executive order, can the next democrat president repeal the 2nd Amendment with an executive order?

A pressing need is reform of immigration law and immigration law enforcement. There is no constitutional right which provides that an alien can import his or her family tree. Birthright citizenship only provides the rights of citizenship to the child. No constitutional provision provides that an illegal alien who punches out a kid on U.S. soil has a right to stay in the U.S.

Okay any western society allow birth right citizenship. I think Canada is the only other country and it will not be long before it collapses into chaos.

Article 5 provides for amendments, but not by executive order.

Almost the entire list is North and South America, which is is western civilization. Canada, the U.S., and Mexico pretty much covers all of North America.

Unrestricted jus soli

• Antigua and Barbuda: Guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Argentina
• Barbados: Guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Barbados Ministry of Labour & Immigration recently proposed ending automatic birthright citizenship.
• Belize
• Bolivia
• Brazil (requires that the foreign parents are not working for their country's government in Brazil by the time the child is born).
• Canada: Subsection 3(2) of the Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada is not granted to a child born in Canada if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parents were diplomats, the nationality or immigration status of the parents do not matter. Some Conservative Party members wish to end birthright citizenship in Canada to the children of tourists and unauthorized immigrants.
• Chad (The choice to take Chadian citizenship, or that of the parents is made at 18 years of age.)
• Chile
• Costa Rica (Jus sangui requires registration with the Costa Rican government before the age of twenty-five)
• Dominica
• Ecuador
• El Salvador
• Fiji
• Grenada
• Guatemala
• Guyana
• Honduras
• Jamaica
• Lesotho
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Pakistan
• Panama
• Paraguay
• Peru (registration required at 18 years of age)
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Tanzania: Per the Tanzania Citizenship Act of 1995, "any child born within the borders of the United Republic of Tanzania, on or after Union Day, 26 April 1964, is granted citizenship of Tanzania, except for children of foreign diplomats."
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tuvalu
• United States: The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, provides: "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."[37] The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory, and thus this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to a U.S.-born person based on the alienage of his or her parents.[38][39] (see United States nationality law).
• Uruguay
• Venezuela

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.

I disagree. They are foreigners who are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction. The amendment wasn't to legalize invaders.

The Supreme court will rule my way if they have any sense. Then we can do mass deportations of fake Americans.

Wrong, as clearly and explicitly demonstrated the by contemporary congressional debate on the amendment.

Trump is trying to move the bar on political discussion of the debate on birthright citizenship.

You might even actually believe that Trump is doing nothing by taking this stance but it does certainly have a political effect. It sets the tone of political debate and sharpens policy positions of those in the GOP and in the other party. It enlarges the scope of action that may be proposed and still be considered part of the legitimate national debate on key issues.

This is exactly what the professional pros consider to be moving the center of gravity in public policy debates. This is exactly what 0bama and Hitlery and their minions meant by the exercise of "soft power".

People born in the U.S. were considered U.S. citizens by virtue of their birth, even though born to European aliens.

Regardless of past case law and your legal opinion, the idea that birth on this soil by illegal alien parents, gives that child citizenship is ignorant as fuck... and extremely shortsighted by whoever drafted that amendment or decided on the case law.

I respect case law and I respect the constitution... but outside of the bill of Rights, I feel any of those amendments (like the 14th) can be modified, amended or nixed by another amendment.

Anyone that agrees that some third world smelly shitbag impregnated pig whore that sneaks on our soil, just to squat a piece of garbage, to game the American citizen, should be allowed or agrees with that conduct, is an asshole.

Being born from ILLEGAL ALIENS, should leave the child an illegal alien... it’s common sense. This way the child is not separated from his illegal scumbag invading douchebag asshole parents.... or do you feel now the parents gain citizenship because the brat did?

[A K A Stone #15] I disagree. They are foreigners who are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction. The amendment wasn't to legalize invaders.

The plain text of the Amendment is clear and the assumed intent of legislators is irrelevant. That is the explicitly stated opinion of the Supreme Court.

The Amendment did not change the existing law at the time it was adopted. "All persons" cannot be interpreted to exclude a class of persons deemed uundesirable at some later date.

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845):

In expounding this law, the judgment of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject, and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

"A Matter of Interpretation," Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997. This book contains an essay by Antonin Scalia and responses to that essay by professors Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Laurence Tribe, and Gordon Wood. There is a final response by Antonin Scalia.

To demonstrate the breadth of legal agreement on this point, I quote from Laurence Tribe and Antonin Scalia.

Laurence Tribe, pp. 65-6

Let me begin with my principal area of agreement with Justice Scalia. Like him, I believe that when we ask what a legal text means — what it requires of us, what it permits us to do, and what it forbids — we ought not to be inquiring (except perhaps very peripherally) into the ideas, intentions, or expectations subjectively held by whatever particular persons were, as a historical matter, involved in drafting, promulgating, or ratifying the text in question. To be sure, those matters, when reliably ascertainable, might shed some light on otherwise ambiguous or perplexing words or phrases - by pointing us, as readers, toward the linguistic frame of reference within which the people to whom those words or phrases were addressed would have "translated" and thus understood them. But such thoughts and beliefs can never substitute for what was in fact enacted as law. Like Justice Scalia, I never cease to be amazed by the arguments of judges, lawyers, or others who proceed as though legal texts were little more than interesting documentary evidence of what some lawgiver had in mind. And, like the justice, I find little to commend the proposition that anyone ought, in any circumstances I can imagine, to feel legally bound to obey another's mere wish or thought, or legally bound to act in accord with another's mere hope or fear.

Antonin Scalia, responding to Dr. Tribe, p. 133

He is correct that we both regard as irrelevant the intentions of the drafters....

At page 30, Scalia quoted from Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845):

In expounding this law, the judgment of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject, and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

Beginning on page 30 Scalia writes:

Extensive use of legislative history in this country dates only from about the 1940s. It was still being criticized by such respected justices as Frankfurter and Jackson as recently as the 1950s. Jackson, for example, wrote in one concurrence:

I should concur in this result more readily if the Court could reach it by analysis of the statute instead of by psychoanalysis of Congress. When we decide from legislative history, including statements of witnesses at hearings, what Congress probably had in mind, we must put ourselves in the place of a majority of Congressmen and act according to the impression we think this history should have made on them. Never having been a Congressman, I am handicapped in that weird endeavor. That process seems to me not interpretation of a statute but creation of a statute.

The Justice Jackson quote is taken from his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 345 U.S. 295 (1953) at 319.

[Tooconservative #16] Trump is trying to move the bar on political discussion of the debate on birthright citizenship.

Give him credit for moving the discussion. He will eventually concede that he cannot do it with an Executive Order and move the discussion toward an Amendment. Much immigration reform can be done with federal legislation and Executive Orders, but birthright citizenship provided for by the 14th Amendment cannot be changed that way. Trump knows that, but he can't get a discussion started with talk of an amendment.

[Grand Island #17] Regardless of past case law and your legal opinion, the idea that birth on this soil by illegal alien parents, gives that child citizenship is ignorant as fuck... and extremely shortsighted by whoever drafted that amendment or decided on the case law.

The case law is correct. The Amendment and its ratification history are a legal horror show. But the fact remains that the amendment was certified as ratified and is part of the Constitution.

[Grand Island #17] I respect case law and I respect the constitution... but outside of the bill of Rights, I feel any of those amendments (like the 14th) can be modified, amended or nixed by another amendment.

Of course the 14th Amendment or any provision of the Constitution may amended or repealed by another Amendemnt. I only maintained that it cannot be amended or repealed with an Executive Order.

[GrandIsland #17] Being born from ILLEGAL ALIENS, should leave the child an illegal alien... it’s common sense. This way the child is not separated from his illegal scumbag invading douchebag asshole parents.... or do you feel now the parents gain citizenship because the brat did?

I will repeat what I stated at #13 in response to Justified.

There is no constitutional right which provides that an alien can import his or her family tree. Birthright citizenship only provides the rights of citizenship to the child.

There is no constitutional impediment to deporting the parents, even if junior is a citizen. If the family wants to stay together, the parents can take the child with them when they go. That is simply a matter of immigration law and no constitutional amendment is required to make it happen. The citizen child cannot be deported, but the illegal alien parents can be deported. Those responsible for any family breakup or inconvenience or trauma would be the illegal alien parents who knew what they were doing when they broke the law to enter illegally and continued to break the law to obtain employment illegally.

It is obvious that the immigration system is broken, but that does not change the 14th Amendment or the Federal immigration laws. A child born in the U.S. without legal immunity is a citizen. That does not convert mom and dad into legal residents or entitle them to green cards, or to remain in the country in they are here illegally.

I would further recommend amending the census provision regarding the division of representatives. The census is a head count of everyone present, alien or citizen. Representation is determined by head count, not citizen count. It includes legal and illegal aliens. California has something like 5 extra representatives in congress solely on the basis of its illegal alien population. The census should include a citizen count and representation in congress should be determined by a count of citizens. Those 5 extra representatives also give California 5 extra delegates to the Electoral College.

No constitutional provision provides that an illegal alien who punches out a kid on U.S. soil has a right to stay in the U.S.

No constitutional provision provides that any illegal alien has any right to be in the U.S. or to stay in the U.S., even during good behavior.

Give him credit for moving the discussion. He will eventually concede that he cannot do it with an Executive Order and move the discussion toward an Amendment.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that concession from Trump. LOL

And it may not be useful or even Trump's actual goal vis-a-vis his 2020 re-election bid. We can't ignore an incumbent's motives less than 18 months from his re-election bid.

Also the Supreme court usurped its authority. I know you disagree. But that is ok with me.

If Trump pushes this with an executive order that is a good thing. It cold force the court to rule the correct way on the 14th amendment. My way not yours.

[A K A Stone] Also diplomats are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Since we have jurisdiction over the United States we decided to give them immunity. Your argument doesn't hold water.

No, your argument has a big leak in its bucket. We do not have jurisdiction over any accredited visiting diplomat. We do not grant immunity to each one, but by accredition assume the burden of foregoing any claim to jurisdiction, as a matter of law. It is covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Were the United States to proceed as you suggest, all visiting diplomats would be withdrawn by their home nation, and all U.S. diplomats around the world would be declared persona non grata and expelled.

Article 6 provides:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Any law in conflict with the Constitution yields to the Constitution. Treaties and Federal laws are equal, and in cases of conflict the one most recently adopted prevails. The Vienna Convention is a treaty and is the supreme law of the land. There is no conflicting provision of the Constitution, nor in any more recent Federal law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations

The treaty is an extensive document, containing 53 articles. The following is a basic overview of its key provisions.

• Article 9. The host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. The sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this person may lose their diplomatic immunity.
• Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats.
• Article 24 establishes that the archives and documents of a diplomatic mission are inviolable. The receiving country shall not seize or open such documents.
• Article 27. The host country must permit and protect free communication between the diplomats of the mission and their home country. A diplomatic bag must never be opened even on suspicion of abuse. A diplomatic courier must never be arrested or detained.
• Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.
• Article 31.1c Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity: professional activity outside diplomat's official functions.
• Article 34 speaks about tax exemption of diplomatic agents while Article 36 establishes that diplomatic agents are exempted from custom duties.
• Article 37. The family members of diplomats that are living in the host country enjoy most of the same protections as the diplomats themselves.

[...]

As of October 2018, there are 192 state parties to the convention including all UN member states except Palau, the Solomon Islands, and South Sudan. Included as state parties are the Holy See and State of Palestine, the two UN observer states. The Republic of China signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on 18 April 1961 and 19 December 1969 respectively prior to the UN granting China's seat to The People's Republic of China. There are no states that have signed the treaty but have not ratified it.

The text of the Treaty is here:

http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

harvardlawreview.org/2014...mits-on-the-treaty-power/

Being born from ILLEGAL ALIENS, should leave the child an illegal alien... it’s common sense.

I'm with you.

And given some of the truly awful decisions of the Supremes, I don't have much respect for them, Roberts in particular.

One can argue that the concept of birthright citizenship played a large role in the Constitution's framing, even prior to the 14th Amendment. After all, the Founders did (necessarily) exempt themselves from those rules about being natural-born.     : )

"Anchor Babies" are the biggest link in the chain that is destroying America.

The only thing the USSC said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.

This is pure unsupported birther nonsense.

You wouldn't happen to be a tiny bit biased in favor of citizenship for illegals,would you,Bubba?

Being born from ILLEGAL ALIENS, should leave the child an illegal alien... it’s common sense.

I believe it is also law,because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and invading the US,even if you are a fetus passenger,is a crime.

HEY! How did you end up being right about something? You feeling ok? Maybe you should consider a medical checkup?

HEY! How did you end up being right about something? You feeling ok? Maybe you should consider a medical checkup?

I’ve caught, arrested and detained more of those non English speaking 3rd world shitbags, and turned them over to the feds, than probably anyone else posting here. I know what I’m talking about... but thanks for the compliment.