Cruz: I think birthright citizenship is terrible policy pic.twitter.com/2YgUfBoqa2
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 16, 2025
In 1898 the Supreme Court established that birthright citizenship was the law of the land since the adoption of the Constitution. It also ruled that the codification of jus soli in Article I of the 14th Amendment therefore applied to the children of non-citizens born on American soil. Jus soli is not and has never been a “policy” of the United States. It is, and has always been, the law of the land. The 14th Amendment codified that jus soli applies to all persons born here; former slaves as well as children of non-citizens.
Did they not teach this at Yale Law, or was Ted just absent that day?
Or is it now that he’s here and he and his children have benefited from it (Ted was born in Canada, but his mother was a U.S. citizen by birth, so he was one at birth by statute)*, he just wants to make America safe for white people?
P.S. all citizenship is technically “birthright.” Either jus soli (born on the soil) or jus sanguinus, or right of blood. For the latter, citizenship at birth is dependent upon the citizenship of the parents. This applies under statutory law in America. My son-in-law was born in Norway to American parents (working for an oil company). He is a “natural born citizen” of America by law. Most of Europe follows jus sanguinus, so he doesn’t have dual nationality.
Given American history, “right by blood” is a little creepy, anyway.
*So maybe it is a bad policy, after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment