This was discussed recently. Here's some more details. Does the
suggestion of how UK law would handle it still bear scrutiny ?
The 14th Amendment plainly states, “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.”
On 2025-06-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
This was discussed recently. Here's some more details. Does the
suggestion of how UK law would handle it still bear scrutiny ?
What is the suggestion? UK law on this topic not only has different
rules, the mechanism which provides and implements the rules is also completely different because we're not a federation and we don't have
a formally protected constitution.
The 14th Amendment plainly states, “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.”
That's not all that plain, because it's not at all clear what "and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. How *could* a baby born
in the USA not be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It seems nonsensical, but it presumably has to mean *something*.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely that it was intended to
mean what the right-wing nutjobs are arguing, i.e. that it means the political allegiance of the baby's parents as determined by their nationality.
On 2025-06-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
This was discussed recently. Here's some more details. Does the
suggestion of how UK law would handle it still bear scrutiny ?
What is the suggestion? UK law on this topic not only has different
rules, the mechanism which provides and implements the rules is also completely different because we're not a federation and we don't have
a formally protected constitution.
The 14th Amendment plainly states, “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.”
That's not all that plain, because it's not at all clear what "and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. How *could* a baby born
in the USA not be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? It seems nonsensical, but it presumably has to mean *something*.
On the other hand, it seems very unlikely that it was intended to
mean what the right-wing nutjobs are arguing, i.e. that it means the political allegiance of the baby's parents as determined by their nationality.
This was discussed recently. Here's some more details. Does the
suggestion of how UK law would handle it still bear scrutiny ?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump- birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-b2778319.html
QUOTE
“Monica” is among several pregnant plaintiffs. She and her husband arrived in the United States from Venezuela more than six years ago. She
is expected to give birth in August.
It’s “impossible” for her child to get Venezuelan citizenship. There’s
no consulate where she could apply, and because she’s seeking asylum,
she cannot leave the country without being barred from returning, she
wrote in court documents.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 17:33:18 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,948 |