Therefore, the argument that there exist legal precedents ruling that illegal immigrants ought to be considered enemies and that their children should be stripped of citizenship is false.
There’s been no supreme court ruling to confirm your analysis, which is why you desire legislation to change the laws currently in place.
And there HAS NOT been a Supreme Court ruling supporting your assertion, that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens.
I don't desire legislation, the Supreme Court taking a case and deciding would be good enough for me - either way. However, they are scared sh*tless to take a case, its too political for them. They have been able to dodge it successfully so far for over 230 years - but if one of the States passes a law denying citizenship to the child of an illegal [and the child sues], the Court WOULD NOT be able to avoid the case due to "lack of standing".
Or by Constitutional Amendment [again declaring either way], by 3/4 of the States [the will of the People].
And your assertion that since there has been no ruling that children of illegals are NOT citizens, then this makes them citizens is TOTALLY bogus. You would MAJORLY fail both Logic 101 and Debate 101.
There is in fact a constitutional amendment which confirms birthright citizenship
That citizenship is conferred by BOTH birth within the US and being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". And, as I have pointed out to you - it is the jurisdiction that is in question.
Without precedent as to "jurisdiction" [vis-a-vis illegal parents], the Court has noted many times that it is INDEED proper to resort to English Common Law in order to determine the issue [Minor v. Happersett, for example].
And, as I have pointed out, English Common Law treated undocumented aliens as enemies AND their children [born in England] NOT to be English subjects.
Give me a Supreme Court Case cite that backs your argument up - you cannot because NONE exist.
“And there HAS NOT been a Supreme Court ruling supporting your assertion, that the children of illegal immigrants are citizens.”
Correct. Which is why there’s a 14th Amendment which says that this is the case. You can argue that it’s the wrong interpretation, but from where I sit, that’s a pretty high evidentiary standard.
The 14th was put in place, because there were no alternatives that would permit the US to make everyone born in US territory to become Americans.
Please understand that things were not so simple back then. A full third of the continental united states, lived in Territories, under the direct administration of the US. They had never had state government.
Then you have the citizens of Mexico, in California, Texas and in the US south that had been patriated in Guadaloupe-Hildago. Then you have the folks in Florida, born under the Spanish crown. Then you have all the different indian tribes. And we haven’t even gotten to the slaves yet! Or the immigrants who were born outside of America! Or all the folks in the South.
Yes, the 14th is radical, but I don’t see how you can come up with a solution that works out for all of these people such that they will be American citizens, other than what was passed in the 14th Amendment.