Natually, liberals are in an uproar, saying you can't do that, because of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (funny how liberals claim to care about the Constitution now!). Even some in the GOP are claiming that, such as Michael Reagan, who made these disappointing comments.
Reagan added Trump's controversial proposal to take "the birthright away from those who came here illegally and gave birth to their children… is never going to happen."
..."There's not a court in the land that's going to overturn and step on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution with having to do with birthright in this country," Reagan argued.Among Trump's fellow 2016 GOP rivals, Marco Rubio proves (along with his membership in the Gang of Eight) how he cannot be trusted on immigration.
"There are people that come to the United States deliberately for the purposes of having a child that's a U.S. citizen."Unlike Trump, Rubio says: "I'm not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment."As does the pro-amnesty ¡Yeb! Arbusto.
"That's a constitutional right," Bush told CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett during an interview in South Carolina, where he is campaigning. "Mr. Trump can say he's for this because people are frustrated that it's abused. We ought to fix the problem rather than take away rights that are constitutionally endowed."
Speaking to reporters later, he added, "I don't support revoking it."But Reagan, Rubio, and ¡Yeb! are wrong that you cannot get rid of birthright citzenship without overturning the 14th Amendment.
Mark Levin pointed that out on his radio show last night.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.Which begs the question to the GOP establishment...are you telling us we cannot end birthright citizenship, or you just don't want to end it? Clearly, the Constitution is not on your side, which makes me think you really don't care to end it.