I normally like Scheerpost and they claim that Trump is being unconstitutional on this one. But the background about freedmen sounds convincing.
"Arguing that the geographic location of a woman's birth canal being in the United States, who owes allegiance to another country, makes her offspring a citizen of this UNION of states, is regicidal, historically inaccurate and just plain stupid."
So in case that amendment was indeed never intended to indiscriminately confer citizenship to anyone just happening to be on US soil in the moment of childbirth, and, if giving birth in a: 'US hospital as a part of the life support structures of a society' has legal consequences that greatly surpass, and that are really totally unrelated to the purpose of: 'succouring and medically assisting a vulnerable human finding themselves in a critical health situation while in a foreign land', then, to avoid that these legal consequences kick in, a nation would have to think of ways of creating extraterritorial places in which the births of non citizens can take place safely and harmoniously, with state of the art level of medical assistance, without however at the same time automatically triggering such totally unrelated legal consequences. This would mean taking measures to ensure that these births are not, technically, taking place on US soil.
The first way coming to mind would be to change the "geographic location" of the birthing person by demanding that there be established professional birthing facilities in the US embassies of those countries that are statistically most frequently the states of origin of this type of pregnant women. This may be difficult. So, think of different ways of exterritorializing birth process and medical assistance.
I'm actually not feeling very caritative by making such proposals...
I normally like Scheerpost and they claim that Trump is being unconstitutional on this one. But the background about freedmen sounds convincing.
"Arguing that the geographic location of a woman's birth canal being in the United States, who owes allegiance to another country, makes her offspring a citizen of this UNION of states, is regicidal, historically inaccurate and just plain stupid."
So in case that amendment was indeed never intended to indiscriminately confer citizenship to anyone just happening to be on US soil in the moment of childbirth, and, if giving birth in a: 'US hospital as a part of the life support structures of a society' has legal consequences that greatly surpass, and that are really totally unrelated to the purpose of: 'succouring and medically assisting a vulnerable human finding themselves in a critical health situation while in a foreign land', then, to avoid that these legal consequences kick in, a nation would have to think of ways of creating extraterritorial places in which the births of non citizens can take place safely and harmoniously, with state of the art level of medical assistance, without however at the same time automatically triggering such totally unrelated legal consequences. This would mean taking measures to ensure that these births are not, technically, taking place on US soil.
The first way coming to mind would be to change the "geographic location" of the birthing person by demanding that there be established professional birthing facilities in the US embassies of those countries that are statistically most frequently the states of origin of this type of pregnant women. This may be difficult. So, think of different ways of exterritorializing birth process and medical assistance.
I'm actually not feeling very caritative by making such proposals...