Did he really say that?1st November 2018
It’s hard to keep up with the President’s logic, but this has me especially confused:
President Trump on Wednesday again sought to turn the nation’s attention to his hard-line stance on immigration ahead of next week’s midterm elections, claiming that birthright citizenship is not covered by the U.S. Constitution and vowing the issue will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
“So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,” Trump tweeted.
The concept of birthright citizenship, which grants citizenship to everyone born in the United States, is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” . . .
“It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” the president said, adding that “many legal scholars agree” with him. Most legal experts disagree, interpreting the clause narrowly, to exclude, for example, the families of foreign diplomats residing in the United States.
Is the President saying that children born in the US to non-residents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? If not, what is he saying? And if the answer is yes, isn’t that pretty shocking? Do these kids really have immunity to our laws? I know, we are long past being shocked . . . but still.
BTW, have you noticed how conservatives interpret the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
Both really confusing. Right?
I’m sure we can trust Brett Kavanaugh to figure it all out.
Read more about eu binary options trading and CFD brokers