It would not require an amendment to change it so that aliens here illegally would not be afforded the right of citizenship, since the law is ambiguous enough and no court has actually ruled on it. Which was my point.
Where do you get these ideas? I'm assuming this is a talking point, but the law in this area has been a basic tenant of American law for nearly 200 years. It is something that Congress could try to change, thus forcing the Court to address the newly invented issue of illegal immigrants, but at the moment is not ambiguous at all. If you wanted to be assured a change conforms to the US Constitution, an Amendment is the only avenue.
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxivYou misinterpret the Wong Kim Ark case. The basic holding of that case was the interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The argument was that a Chinese person who is a subject of the Emperor of China is under the jurisdiction of a foreign power and cannot be under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court held, and every subsequent court has held, that the phrase means generally subject to the laws of the land (hence: not an official of a foreign power). The framers were well aware of the English concept of
jus sanguinis (inherited citizenship) and consciously opted for the inclusion of
jus soli (right of soil).
What other clause in the 14th Amendment is ambiguous?
Heck, we could take Ark further. The parents in Ark were legally forbidden from becoming citizen of the US because Chinese immigrants were the people to pick on at that time. The argument from the opposition is the same basic argument you are making now: the parents were not welcome here, the children should not be either. That notion was rejected.
Plus - all this anti immigrant hype is confusing to me anyway. We have a low birthrate and low unemployment. From a purely economic perspective fighting to keep workers out is strange (and yes, I think it should be done by expanding legal immigration. But we aren't doing anything on that front either). Unless, of course, you believe the lies that Mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and murderers (maybe we can go back to claiming all Chinese immigrants were whatever we said they were!).
- - - -
Fair question, is someone driving a rental car and doesn't have their name on the agreement not probably cause for cops? Stolen vehicle potentially. He also had prior drug and weapons violations which they were aware of prior to the search. He was actually in violation of the agreement at that point (not sure the cops knew this or not, but I'm sure if they read hard enough they would see it). They did find 49 bricks of heroin in this particular vehicle by the way, so the fact that this made it to the Supreme Court (only to be remanded) is kind of comical.
Again, where are you getting your ideas? This is exactly why the 4th Amendment is dying and why Americans barely deserve the freedom won and codified by our Founding Fathers. We, as a society, are ignorant of the purpose of our rights. Huge segments of our citizens are happy to see the government's power grow and add more and more exceptions and caveats to the 4th Amendment. As long as it's happening to "them" and you "have nothing to hide," because the government could never abuse its power against you.
What police might have known is irrelevant to the formation of probable cause - only what they actually knew at the time. What they found after the search is usually not instructive in determining if the stop/search was legal (read the case: it is the search not the stop being questioned. They knew about the rental agreement before searching). In fact - I've never seen a 4th Amendment case that doesn't end with the police finding something because there is essentially no remedy for an illegal search that doesn't result in an arrest. "But he was guilty" is utterly irrelevant to the application of the 4th Amendment or it would be meaningless.
In the
case referenced, they never got to the actual merits of the search. The appeal was simply based on the ruling that anyone not on the rental agreement basically waves their 4th Amendment rights - which the Court pointed out is not correct. I think nearly everyone who borrows a friend's rental vehicle would think the contents of the vehicle were still generally private and that the police were not free to stop and search the vehicle as they pleased.
The lower Court will now reach the merits of the search (not on the agreement, nervous, excon, was enough probable cause to search). I'm not sure how that will go because those factors in and of themselves certainly dont seem that odd - people borrow rental cars all the time and there are tons of ex cons who are nervous when interacting with police. once the joint was disclosed, I suspect the search was legal. The police were clearly trying to do their job and found themselves in a tough spot... strongly suspecting the guy was up to no good, but also aware they didn't have a strong basis to search. The police job is to try to get the job done within the rules, the Courts then sort out if they did it right... so I'm not criticizing the offers here.
But to throw out the reasonable expectation of privacy test is to severely limit the 4th Amendment and by extension greatly expand the power of government. You can frame it as being "true to the original" if you want, but if that's the case we need to strike the vast majority of American law, governance, and practice. Essentially, start over. That doesn't scream stability and even most originalists only want that policy to control select areas they want to change.
Few protections are as essential to individual liberty as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Framers made that right explicit in the Bill of Rights following their experience with the indignities and invasions of privacy wrought by “general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence.” Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, 761 (1969). Ever mindful of the Fourth Amendment and its history, the Court has viewed with disfavor practices that permit “police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332, 345 (2009)
- - - -
