哪那么容易，得改宪法。

我觉得可能不用修宪。如果真的要改宪法，川普做不到。他也知道他做不到。

他可以做的，是搞个行政命令，这个行政命令一定会被法律挑战，也一定会打到SCOTUS。

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 的结论，其实可以挑战的。

他如果聪明，可能已经和他任命的几个大法官了解过了，这几个大法官对于宪法解读，以及United States v. Wong Kim Ark的解读，有没有法律操作空间。如果有，那就简单了，直接发行政命令就好，然后就是等着某人来打官司，打到SCOTUS，然后就OK了。

当年的同志婚姻，原本是想靠各民主党州先搞，然后逼迫联邦层面承认，因为各州不同步会出现很多法律问题。但prop 8连加州公投都没通过，于是只好改弦更张，换了一个高法的路线，通过基层法院到SCOTUS，一步一步的，就成功了。

其实高法路线是最简单的路线，搞修宪，那是不可能的。宪法又不是滴水不漏，怎么解读，就靠那9个法官。

是啊，只要高院对United States v. Wong Kim Ark重作解释就可以了。高院很可能会支持川普。

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/does-the-constitution-mandate-universal-birthright-citizenship-heres

What About Wong Kim Ark?

Despite claims by advocates of universal birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court has already held universal birthright citizenship to be “the law of the land,” the reality is far different. 

It is true that, in 1898, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of lawfully present and permanently domiciled Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

At its core, Wong Kim Ark was about the government’s attempt to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and keep Chinese immigrants and their children from ever becoming citizens, by any means, just because they were Chinese. 

At the time, federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, and they were, according to treaty obligations with China, perpetual Chinese subjects. 

Much like the freed slaves, Chinese immigrants were prohibited from subjecting themselves to the complete jurisdiction of the United States because of their race, and were relegated to permanent alienage in a country where they would live and die. 

This type of race-based discrimination in citizenship was precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit, and the Supreme Court rightly recognized the system for the unconstitutional travesty it truly was. 

While the opinion can also be read as affirmatively adopting jus soli as the “law of the land,” it can just as easily be read as adopting only a flexible, “Americanized” jus soli limited to the factors of lawful presence and permanent domicile. 

This second interpretation renders the holding consistent with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is also precisely what many legal commentators at the time thought the Supreme Court meant, too. 

In short, Wong Kim Ark only deviates from the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment if one chooses to read it acting under the assumption that the Supreme Court intended to upend decades of precedent and judicially supersede the clear intent of Congress. That assumption is unnecessary, illogical, and dangerous. 

爸妈要赴美生子？

应该是针对母亲是旅游签证和偷渡的吧。F1和工作签证的应该不会受影响

孩子跟孩子能一样吗？这些孩子的一般情况下背景都是有钱有势的，来了美国不是给美国人干活的，是要抢资本家生意的，是要当主人的。

现在你还认为美国要欢迎这些孩子吗？