11-10-2016, 06:09 PM
(11-10-2016, 05:27 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Yup, it could pretty much open all kinds of cans of worms if that interpretation was possible. Citizenship cannot be revoked retroactively simply based on new laws.
Well, that's not what we are talking about. We are talking more about whether or not the 14th defines citizenship based on where you are born or not.
This is section 1: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
The 14th Amendment is the most important and paradigm shifting amendment of our Constitution after the Bill of Rights. Some may argue even more so than some of those original 10. It has been interpreted since its ratification as Jus Soli, and I've never heard of a judge, let alone enough of them to change the interpretation, seeing it another way. It won't happen, not even going forward. An amendment would have to be passed to change the law, and given the importance of the 14th and how it changed our Constitution it would be something very difficult to get sorted.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
