To which promises do you hold president Trump.

[masterpanthera_t]

(11-10-2016, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

We may have been speaking about two different aspects regarding the "interpretation", I'm not sure, considering that the topic surrounding your and my responses were both connected to the same general set of posts.  However, in the main conclusion drawn, you and I are saying the same thing.  My point is even if the interpretation became Jus Soli vs. Jus Sanguinis, it still couldn't retroactively affect anyone granted citizenship based on the previous Jus Soli interpretation.  This point was in reference to state that a changed interpretation still doesn't affect the eviction of children of illegal immigrants who were born here.  

You've provided quite a bit of extra details which I found enlightening, so it's appreciated.  However, I believe you and I are stating the same when it came to the interpretation of the amendment as it relates to its effects on previously granted citizenship.  There were a few posts after my earlier post which I haven't kept up on, so it's possible you were making a commentary on a different scope and I could have responded to your post under a differently assumed scope erroneously.  If that is the case, please excuse my laziness.