scrubbedexpat099

UK does not have birth citizenship so presume there was some other factors.

The US wording is qualified and obviously how it is currently interpreted was not how it was intended.

BritInParis

It did before 1983.

jkeller

The UK did have birthright citizenship until Jan 1983. All the US military brats born in the UK after that date are not British citizens. Unless 1 of the kids parents are British.

scrubbedexpat099

I stand corrected:

Between 1949 and 1982, birth in the UK or a Crown Colony was sufficient in itself to confer the status of Citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) irrespective of the status of parents, although only CUKCs with a connection to the UK (i.e., birth in the UK or has a UK-born parent or grandparent) would have right of abode in the UK after 1971 and would eventually become British citizens in 1983. CUKCs without a connection to the UK would become either British Overseas Territories citizens or British Overseas citizens in 1983 depending on whether they have a connection with another BOT.

The only exception to this rule were children of diplomats and enemy aliens. This exception did not apply to most visiting forces, so, in general, children born in the UK before 1983 to visiting military personnel (e.g. US forces stationed in the UK) were CUKCs connected with UK and would become British citizens in 1983, albeit as a second nationality.

Octang Frye

This is a bad idea and I oppose it strongly. You can't just up and change the Constitution by executive order. It sets a terrible precedent and some Democrat will come and say, oh, Trump did it for the 14th, I'm going to do it for the 2nd. No way, Jose. Bad, bad, bad.

scrubbedexpat099

The issue is one of interpretation, sadly the Executive Order cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.

jkeller

"...born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were declared citizens. However, the jurisdiction requirement was interpreted to exclude most Native Americans, and in 1870, the Senate Judiciary committee further clarified the matter: "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States." From the Wiki page I quoted above. Just my guess...Trump is going to use the same idea that 14th amendment doesn't apply to illegals or people here on temporary visas, like tourists.

scrubbedexpat099

Agree.

Anian

Wouldn't that mean that tourists can't be arrested for federal crimes?

jkeller

kimilseung

Its an equally valid interpretation.

Hiro11

Since all developed countries in the world with the exception of Canada already do exactly what Trump is proposing, it seems like a double standard to be so offended. Try to emigrate to Japan some time.

It's never going to pass anyway.

robin1234

The Kraken awakes.

yellowroom

BritInParis

It’s a vote winner a week out from the midterms. So long as the Republicans retain control of one or both chambers it doesn’t really matter if it’s possible or not. That’s not the aim. The Democrats shot themselves in the foot over Kavanaugh and this is a good way to get that momentum over the line next week. Another smart piece of electioneering from Trump.