I joined the SMF because I'm a firm supporter of the 2A and the SMF is in the forefront of this struggle. But I'm not supporting at all using a dubious stance on what IS a settled matter in the 14th, siding with trump on this.
While many countries around the world grant automatic citizenship based on jus sanguinis, that's not the case in the US where jus soli is the established law.
You're taking a stance on the wrong side of history and I'm sorry to be pushed to withdraw my support of the SMF and actively campaign against joining the SMF if you're venturing into places many 2A supporters cannot follow. Rethink your stance on this, I urge you.
SMF is on the right side of the issue regarding "birthright" citizenship. Background: Senator Jacob M. Howard played a significant role in the drafting and debate of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He is credited with introducing the Citizenship Clause of the amendment in the U.S. Senate. During the debate, Howard clarified his statement, explaining that the clause was intended to have the same content as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, despite different wording.
Howard's intention was to make clear that merely being born in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. He specifically argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude certain groups from automatic citizenship. According to Howard, the amendment would not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the U.S. government.
While I'm aware of that context, I must point out that's not the text of the amendment and that's the text that matters. Opening the door to that footnote interpretation and effectively aboloshing jus solis is the exact same as the argument the 2A context being one that refers to muskets and top loaded firearms only.
We can't be cherry picking what context applies or not when the text of an amendment offfers no such presumed clarity.
So again, it's a dangerous precedent to open overall, and in any case never within the purview of the executive to change. It would require an act of congress.
I joined the SMF because I'm a firm supporter of the 2A and the SMF is in the forefront of this struggle. But I'm not supporting at all using a dubious stance on what IS a settled matter in the 14th, siding with trump on this.
While many countries around the world grant automatic citizenship based on jus sanguinis, that's not the case in the US where jus soli is the established law.
You're taking a stance on the wrong side of history and I'm sorry to be pushed to withdraw my support of the SMF and actively campaign against joining the SMF if you're venturing into places many 2A supporters cannot follow. Rethink your stance on this, I urge you.
SMF is on the right side of the issue regarding "birthright" citizenship. Background: Senator Jacob M. Howard played a significant role in the drafting and debate of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He is credited with introducing the Citizenship Clause of the amendment in the U.S. Senate. During the debate, Howard clarified his statement, explaining that the clause was intended to have the same content as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, despite different wording.
Howard's intention was to make clear that merely being born in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. He specifically argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude certain groups from automatic citizenship. According to Howard, the amendment would not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the U.S. government.
While I'm aware of that context, I must point out that's not the text of the amendment and that's the text that matters. Opening the door to that footnote interpretation and effectively aboloshing jus solis is the exact same as the argument the 2A context being one that refers to muskets and top loaded firearms only.
We can't be cherry picking what context applies or not when the text of an amendment offfers no such presumed clarity.
So again, it's a dangerous precedent to open overall, and in any case never within the purview of the executive to change. It would require an act of congress.