[InterceptPoint]

Myths about birthright citizenship—promoted by liberals, embraced by establishment Republicans, and repeated by mainstream media pundits without critical examination—have been debunked by experts spanning the political spectrum. But none of those people are being given A-list treatment by major media outlets to respond.

Below is the example of the critical examination to which you refer. Try out your critical examination abilities on the following two sentences (A and B) and see if you see any difference. Liberals somehow don't. Amazing.

A. The 14th Amendment as written:

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.

B. A change to the 14th Amendment that liberals believe would be meaningless:

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.

[Red Steel]

Yes. And Senator Howard would have ommitted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" from the amendment if he meant what the leftists and GOPE critters say it means now.

It's synonymous with the 1866 Civil Rights Act in the first sentence.

"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, ..."

Congress went ahead to pass and send to the states for ratification of the 14th Amendment because they didn't want the 1866 Civil Rights Act to be easily overturned by future legislation.

"not subject to any foreign power" = "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

[Red Steel]

One other thing Intercept, the 1866 Civil Rights Act has never been overturned so it is still law.

Someone should tell the Dummies in the GOPE and moron media.