Birthright citizenship seems rather cut and dry, does it not? The purpose of the passage in the 14th Amendment was explicitly to make sure that the former slaves and their children obtain immediate U.S. citizenship post-Civil War. But, it seemed to give anyone born here citizenship. Here’s how CNN is tackling it in what is supposed to be straight news (politics section), not opinion
Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship
President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.
Trump’s vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
But don’t call CNN biased. Regardless of their biases, is it legal?
(Daily Caller) In the U.S., birthright citizenship traces back to a clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, passed just after the Civil War. The amendment’s citizenship clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.â€
The clause itself is based on the legal concept of jus soli, or citizenship by “right of soil,†which contrasts with jus sanguinis, or citizenship by familial descent. It has been widely taken to apply to anyone born within U.S. territorial jurisdiction regardless of the immigration status of their parents, with the notable exception of foreign diplomats.
In its 1898 ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court held that the children of non-citizens, when born on U.S. territory, are U.S. citizens by birth. However, the parents in question in the Wong Kim Ark case were legal immigrants, meaning the court did not directly address the status of children born to parents in the U.S. illegally.
That unanswered question gives Trump room to argue the citizenship clause has been too widely interpreted, according to Johns Hopkins University professor Martha Jones, an expert on birthright citizenship.
“A narrowly tailored EO [executive order] that rested on the view that the children of unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in citizenship terms) and thus not citizens by virtue of Birthright is an argument that can be made,†Jones wrote Tuesday on Twitter.
It’s an interesting point. You see the part about children of foreign diplomats. They are excluded because they are not subject to the jurisdiction. It can be argued that those who arrive illegally are not subject, nor are those who overstay their visas.
Most countries in the world do not offer birthright citizenship — only 30 out of the world’s 194 nations automatically grant citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
No European country has birthright citizenship, and the global trend over the past 30 years has been to halt the practice. Notable countries that have ended birthright citizenship in recent decades include the U.K. in 1983, Australia in 1986, India in 1987 and Ireland in 2004.
It may seem like low hanging fruit at this time, but, ending it would stop a big incentive for illegals to come and have children, as we’ve seen them use their kids as shields, saying “the kids are citizens, so, I should not be deported and should be granted citizenship, too.” That said, a growing number of illegals are ones who show up at the border with the intention of being detained by federal authorities, at which point they expect to be released so they can disappear. Since we are taking custody of them at the border, even at places that are not designated as official crossings, it could be argued that they are now under U.S. jurisdiction.
So, anyone showing up needs to be turned back. No entry. Period. If Democrats cared about the illegals who are already here, especially the so-called Dreamers, they should support tough immigration controls like this. Make it really hard for illegals to come, turn those caught back, deport those caught in the U.S. immediately, and so forth. If they did, they could most likely find support for a one time earned amnesty for those already here.
The order would also apply to tourist birthing, where people come to the U.S. specifically to have their baby, giving it citizenship. Would an order be Constitutional? We’ll have to see if one is released, and, if so, what is it’s basis and legal reasoning. Then all the lawsuits.
Read: Could Trump Bar Illegal Aliens From Birthright Citizenship? »
Earlier this month, 
Thousands of Central American migrants trudging through Mexico towards the US have regularly been described as either fleeing gang violence or extreme poverty.
Wondering how to craft the cleverest, scariest costume at the Halloween party this year? Since we’re of the mind that there’s nothing scarier than environmental destruction, we gathered a few ideas for ways to give your costume some eco-flair. Because if there’s anything scarier than mummies and witches, it’s climate change.
“WE’RE UNDER fire, we’re under fire. He’s got an automatic weapon,†was the 
The same day a shooter opened fire in a Pittsburgh synagogue, loud car backfires rang out like gunshots during Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s campaign stop in front of Reser Stadium on Saturday.
Just 16 countries have set clear goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions that will allow them to match their ambitious pledges to tackle climate change.
