Replies

That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, back in 1880 or so

And the Juvenile death penalty was upheld in Stanford v. Kentucky in 1989. Yesterday it was overturned in Roper v. Simmons. Why should they uphold a 1880 decision on immigration in light of increased abuse in the time since? Times change. That was the whole point of Roper v. Simmons.

And besides Native Americans were not included as citizens in 1880 despite being native born. It took an act of Congress (note that it was not a judicial decision, but an act of Congress) to give them citizenship in 1924.

Interesting and informative exchange between the two of you. It would seem that the proposed law could be upheld by the courts as constitutional, especially given the intent of the original author (of the 14th), and that the Supreme Court has clearly overturned a decision it made in the past with regard to the death penalty as it applies to minors.

However, this entire discussion is academic, as can be seen from this quote from the article:

Advocates for and against the measure, which has surfaced in various forms before, said the bill is unlikely to go far in Congress. The bill is now in the House Judiciary Committee. No hearing on the bill has been scheduled.

"This is really a perennial bill; it comes up each spring," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant-rights advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "It gets a handful of co-sponsors and never sees the light of day."

I tend to believe Ms. Kelley is right about the bill not seeing the light of day, especially given the fact it's a perennial bill.