The US Constitution sez if you're born here you are a United States Citizen. The prez wants to rescind that. Agree with he/dis? Why?

I agree with automatic citizenship for children born here of naturalized, legal immigrants.  I believe the parents of children born here should have to apply for legal status in this country.  If they become naturalized, the children should then be considered full citizens.  If not, the parents should be deported and their children should be required to leave with them.  If the children wish to apply for citizenship at a later date, they should be considered for it.

Hello there Rosie
First, I want to apologize for the way I have interacted with you. I was wrong in the way I reacted.
I accused you of being what you claim to detest, while I was doing the same thing, that is not who I want to be.
I will offer no excuse and only offer to be more respectful and kind, and give you honest and fair answers.

It will come as no surprise to you that I agree with the President on this, however I do not believe his intention is to "rescind" that part of the 14th amendment, but rather restore the intention of the 14th amendment. 
The 14th amendment is part of the "reconstruction amendments", (13th, 14th and 15th amendments.) These amendments were to insure the newly freed slaves were to be considered citizens of the United States and that no state could violate this. 
The 13th amendment abolished slavery, but didnt make clear the legal status of the former slaves, they were at that free but what rights did they have, and what about that ol' 3/5th thing? thus the 14th amendment..granting full citizenship to the former slaves and their children, thus basically overturning the 3/5th compromise of the Constitution and the Dred Scott decision which held that No person of African ancestry  could be a citizen. the 15th guaranteed the right to vote.
The 14th amendment says that any person born or naturalized in the U.S.and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. 
Had the intention been to confer citizenship to anyone simply born in the U.S, there would have been no need to qualify it  "and being Subject to the jurisdiction thereof". this means NOT being subject to another jurisdiction, they make this distinction later in the amendment that people "Within" the jurisdiction are still entitled to due process. they make the distinction between being "subject to" and being "within" a jurisdiction.
The courts have upheld this idea in several key cases. I cant remember the exact names  Slaughter ??? held that tthe qualification of "jurisdiction" in the amendment was intended to exclude "children of citizens or subjects of foreign states born in the U.S".  This was confirmed in a later case with dealt with the citizenship of Indians, the court held that indians and their children could not be citizens because they held allegiance to  different jurisdiction, their Tribe..this was later overturned in the Indian Citizen Act of 19??. Again if citizenship was guaranteed to anyone simply for being born here, that act  would not have been necessary.

There is no law or statute or legislative act that confers citizenship to children of aliens, other than that which just repeats the text of the 14th amendment. The idea of birthright citizenship that includes everyone without regard to their "jurisdiction" is the result of not enforcing the actual text and precedent. 
I believe in this the case the President does have the constitutional executive authority to instruct his agencies to begin to deny visa's and S.S.N. numbers to the children of illegal aliens..until of course challenged in court or overturned with actual legislation..

Happy Thursday

The President is simply putting it back to how the Senator who wrote the bill intended it. Its purpose was to force the slave states to allow citizenship to the newly freed slaves. 



The 14 Amendment’s citizenship clause was authored by Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, who clarified its meaning on the floor of the Senate in 1866: