The US Constitution also guarantees birthright citizenship, but that doesn't mean the government will actually respect that right. The US Constitution only holds as long as people are willing to defend it.
That amendment has never been tested in the grounds that the Trump administration is.
It certainly wasn’t intended for the currently used purpose and will very much come down to “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which anyone short of the best legal scholars in our country aren’t qualified to speak to.
The text of the amendment is as clear as day: anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen, with only a few, well defined exceptions (children of foreign diplomats).
The Supreme Court already ruled on the meaning of the amendment in 1898, so there's no possible ambiguity left.
Trump's executive order is just blatantly illegal.
Ah, but it's not so simple. Here's part of the majority opinion:
"Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . ."
You'll note the "so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here" part. His parents weren't illegal immigrants. They were 'legally domiciled,' which was a thing at the time. Again, from my understanding it gets more in the weeds than that.
You're confusing the facts of the case with the opinion.
The section you're quoting is a recapitulation of the facts of the case, as agreed upon by all parties. The majority then lays out its legal theory and applies them to the facts, not all of which are relevant to the decision.
The court argues at length that under English Common Law (which is also the law of the United States), anyone born in the country is automatically a citizen, with only two exceptions:
1. Children of accredited diplomats.
2. Children born to hostile foreign armies in belligerent occupation of some part of the country's territory. For example, it cites the case of a child born to the wife of a British soldier during the British occupation of Charleston, during the revolution. That child is not an American citizen.
The court only recognizes one further exception to birthright citizenship:
3. Children born under the jurisdiction of Native American tribes. The court says that the existence of quasi-independent native tribes is a special circumstance with no precedent in English Common Law.
The court specifically argues that English Common Law and the text of the 14th Amendment allow no other exceptions. The concept of "legal domicile" is not relevant to citizenship, and the court specifically states that even the children of sojourners, businesspeople and others only temporarily in the country become citizens at birth. The only exceptions are those I listed above.
The point is that you have to actually read the majority opinion, which argues all of these points at great length.
What Trump is trying to push through, by executive order, would be a massive revision of American law, going back to the Constitution and even before the revolution. The 14th Amendment was intended to make those principles, which Trump is now denying, completely unassailable for all time.
Erm, a nationwide injunction was already made against that part of the executive order by a federal judge. You're the second person today I've seen try to imply that we're in a dictatorship because of that executive order. Whoever is spreading that misinformation should be fact-checked!
The president has ordered the bureaucracy to ignore the 14th Amendment. You may be blasé about that, and even consider pointing that out to be "misinformation," but I'm not. It's a sign that Constitutional rule in the US is in serious danger.
I'm not even going to get into all the other unconstitutional actions Trump has taken, such as appointing Elon Musk to lead the most powerful agency in the federal government without Senate advice and consent.
Senate consent is only required for actual agency posts. Elon's team is just a small part of the USDS which is part of the Office of the White House. Which doesn't require Senate consent. Elon also has a Top Secret clearance and is technically competent to do the job.
Now I'm not defending everything Elon does but I'm saying that I didn't see anything that looked illegal there about the job description and the hiring itself.
Personally, I'd be happy enough if they just gutted just the FDA. There's probably a lot of other agencies doing harm and are overfunded.
Also, was advice and consent from the senate obtained for all these billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted and given to other countries for things that aren't needed?
> Senate consent is only required for actual agency posts
The Constitution requires Senate advice and consent for all government officials, except minor officials specifically exempted by an act of Congress. Calling Elon Musk and DOGE "just a small part of the USDS" is laughable. You know that isn't true. They have the power to take over and shut down any federal agency they choose. He's not some minor official, and the Constitution is very clear that his position needs Senate approval.
> I didn't see anything that looked illegal there
Shutting down USAID is illegal. The president does not have the authority to arbitrarily shut down federal agencies and to not spend money that Congress has appropriated.
> was advice and consent from the senate obtained for all these billions of taxpayer dollars being wasted and given to other countries
Yes. Why are you even asking this?
> for things that aren't needed?
AIDS patients in Africa don't need antiviral drugs?
