There are actually four sources of law, and you're looking at one only: statutory. As regards statutory law, you are correct: that comes from Congress and only the Congress.

Constitutional law is what follows from the plain text of the Constitution, by any reasonable interpretation.

Case law is what judges have decided in controversies that came before them.

Natural law is that law which proceeds from the very nature of nation-states and their citizens and subjects.

Now: you maintain that under the current state of the law, where the stork drops you, you are a citizen by birth.

And I am asking you to cite the statute, the case, or the Article (or Amendment), Section, and Clause of the Constitution that so says.

And I rely on Emmerich de Vattel, who treated natural law in The Law of Nations, to say that citizenship depends on lawful residency of the parents.

If no one professes to know how a President may act, then he is well advised to act, and say to his opponents, "So sue me." That's the only way to get a court to decide.

If you think you can cut that short, then cite statute, case, or Constitutional provision.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I can read, however, and Article I of the Constitution of the United States states very clearly in its opening paragraph:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Legislative power is the power to make law. According to the Constitution, it very clearly reserves lawmaking power to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. If the President is making law, he is abrogating his duties and infringing on the prerogative of the Legislature. This is made even more egregious when talking about immigration/naturalization laws, which are specifically delegated as per Section 8 of Article I to the Legislature thus:

"The Congress shall have Power...
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

You keep asking for a court case, but the proper mechanism for adjudication is already in place: Impeachment. It should have happened to Barack Obama, but the Republicans were too spineless to do it. The other difficulty is that the Supreme Court has typically dodged these kinds of cases for exactly that reason, saying that if the Legislature wants to do something, it should - not merely gripe.

Of course, this is the first time in nearly 80 years when we have a majority of actual Constitutionalists on the Bench. The Supreme Court has been distinctly leftist for much of that time. That's one of the reasons I WANT this to go to the Supreme Court at this time: so that such actions can be Constitutionally argued and decided.

The other major problem I have is the approach - that somehow we must be forced to bow before the Judicial Branch in order to limit the Executive. This is also a false ideal. The Framers intentionally created the Legislative Branch to be by far the most powerful, and the Judicial the least. A reliance on Supreme Court precedent instead of an actual reading of the Constitution is incredibly dangerous.

Nevertheless: he should consider himself free to act until a court tells him he may not act. If you think he is not free to act as he proposes, cite the case!

I dislike sounding like a broken record (one of the strategies of assertive interaction). But I still say:

Cite the case.

Cite the case.

Cite the case.

"he should be free to set policy"

That's the same line of reasoning Woodrow Wilson advocated for a century ago, and it is as wrong now as it was then. An Imperial President - one who can create law - is the most dangerous threat to Constitutional liberty which exists, because it undermines and eradicates all the careful checks and balances of our system.

The Constitution, and the full body of statutory, case, and natural law, when, as, and if applicable.

What you keep missing, is that nothing in either statutory, case, or natural law grants birthright citizenship to every baby whom the stork drops on any given soil, merely by virtue of said stork leaving his load on said soil. Everybody keeps saying it. And I say: cite the case! And that's what Trump is now doing: challenging his gibing detractors to cite the case.

I agree trump wants it in Supreme Court . It is an interpretation of the constitution which needs to be made

Disagree, he can make a move (as he has) that will provoke Congress to discuss and hopefully act. Yes, EOs can be used to make and shape policy, but EOs, nor is the Executive, permitted to make or adjust law as set forth by the Constitution.

Like it or not the 14th Amendment is law and does have rulings for and against the current fallacious interpretation.

I'm thinking DT kicked this ball into motion and, as long as he doesn't believe its a power he possesses, its a good thing.

Re: "the Legislative and not the Executive Branch has responsibility for immigration and naturalization law as per the Constitution." But if the executive branch is confronted with a situation for which no guiding legislation exists, he should be free to set policy based on his interpretation of the Constitution until a law covering this situation is in place.

Trump wants it in the Supreme Court--now that it has a good block of judges. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch--and Kavanaugh.

Sounds like you would prefer not to Live in a country at all, but just occupy a place in the land with whoever lives around you.

The whole idea of living in a neighborhood or a country is that you are surrounded by people who think like you do. It’s like living in a large gated HOA with certain agreed on rules

For that to be meaningful, you need borders and agreed on rules (values).

You can want no borders and unfettered immigration of people of different cultures if it makes you feel good. I just don’t want to live in such a place

In case you haven’t noticed, AS May have been written as a novel, buts turned more into a dicumejtary

It would be great if the senate and house could agree on immigration reform. BUT. The Democrats will vote as a block for open borders ONLY , and that’s bad for the country. If trump does it by exec order, it will wind up in the Supreme Court, Bottom line is nothing will change for years

That was Heinlein's notion. It didn't have to be military, so long as it required you to put your life on the line. (Exception: law enforcement, which that society restricted to citizens.) The society would even invent ways for people to volunteer to serve. As one example: the idea of using convicts to volunteer for disease exposure to win release was dead. Now free civilians would volunteer for such a project in order to win their votes.

The USA not being a person, has no values. What are those USA values that you believe belong to every citizen?
You would have to increase the size of the FBI greatly background check every 18 year old to find out whether they have all the attributes that you believe necessary for citizenship. Would have to be like the sign up for the draft at 18. Fill out a card and send it in, else, as a male, never get a job again for not sighing up.
An individual vote is meaningless unless the vote for or against is within one vote. So the fear must be that some person might vote whom you do not like. For some reason, it seems that those members of some group with certain ideas would like to vote themselves some goodies to be feared by other groups. The USA is not a democracy, so stop trying to get favors, goodies, and power over those you do not like. Laws can take care of the uncivil who use force against others. When did your vote ever determine anything other than the good feeling of "I have voted, so I am therefore good."
There is not tipping point leading to an Atlas Shrugged disaster. Some of those in the Gulch seem to believe that the USA is balanced on a precipice where a little unbalance will send it into an Atlas Shrugged world. Just read Atlas Shrugged for the philosophical ideas and stop getting alienated by trying to emulate, and failing to do so, the heroes of the novel. Being lost in a novel will reap only bitter fruit.

That reminds me of the commentary on people who jumped off the WTC to their deaths - acting before they jumped like they were trying to escape something invisible that was causing pain.

I liked that idea actually. I think it doesnt need to be military, but the idea is to make citizenship the result of a serious commitment to the country. I think that is good.

Excuse me, but I dispute you. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means "lawfully resident."

Demonstrably it does not refer to the child of an invading or occupying soldier. (If the child is a product of a relationship between said soldier and a local citizen, that's a different thing, and would be NSFW to discuss.)

If an invading or occupying soldier is a robber, then an illegal immigrant is a burglar. The distinction between the two makes no difference.

Excuse me, I think that is dead wrong. The Amendment says "All persons born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." We are not supposed to go by the inner, subjective intentions of the people who draft and Amendment. The words mean what they mean. Perhaps they should have thought enough about the possibilities of "anchor babies" but the fact is, they didn't; and if you disagree with the Amendment, you are free to campaign for a new Amendment to overturn it.

The late Robert A. Heinlein proposed something more radical than that: you get your voting citizenship after you have served a term in either military or other life-on-the-line service. Even something as passive as volunteering for an inoculation with a deadly disease would qualify--or some kind of ultra-hazardous engineering job.

Of course, Heinlein also figured the only way that could come about, would be after a total social collapse--in which the veterans would take over, set up vigilance committees, and allow no one to serve on those committees who hadn't served with them.

How about you apply on your 18th birthday for "citizenship" (you cant vote anyway under 18). you would need to not be a felon, have a job or means of support, and have some skills and be willing to stick up for the USA values.

Forget the automatic citizenship thing totally. If you want to vote, you need to have some desire to be responsible with that vote.

You are under the jurisdiction of a state whenever you are with in its boundaries. Different laws in each state. If born in Wisconsin are you a citizen of Wisconsin which sticks with you for life? The place of birth is an accident for a baby and does not give the baby anything other than the protection of the law for that area as it does for an illegal who must obey the laws of the state and the USA. Citizenship gives the government extra control over a person so that it can do more or less force against the person. Do you have birthright citizenship? What does that even mean for a child of two citizens or a citizen and a non citizen or two non citizens or for two citizens adopting a child who was not born in the USA? Are you somehow a citizen if you leave the USA for some period of time and get tainted by some other society, legally or illegally, of the world before returning? The legality of the parents does not affect the child who is an individual subject to the laws of the state or possession of the USA. If it is not a citizen it does not exist or is like Philip Nolan to be shuttled around the world with no country? In the story, Nolan was a citizen and then not a citizen for a matter of his opinion about the USA. Even life sentence prisoners retain citizenship but are not allowed to exorcise liberty. Just as a child born to parents of a religion does not make the child a child of that religion, who are your parents does not make you an individual with their beliefs.
The whole problem with citizenship concerns is the belief that the government must take care of the child from birth to death, caring for health, education, employment, protection, and everything else about its life. That is the only fear that causes concern about non citizens' children being citizens.

"If y want to limit campaign contributions, limit the power of the government to take from one and give to another citizen"

Not disputing this, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We can't limit the government without getting the right people in there in the first place - people who actually represent their districts and not those halfway (or more) across the country. While I would love to have an Article Five Convention of States, that solution seems stalled.

"Last point- president is also administrator if the bureaucracy"

Assuredly. But if you start limiting what the President is able to do by EO, not only do we start back on the road toward the Founders' notion of the Executive but the bureaucracies then lean toward being extensions of legislative will rather than political tools of the Executive. I don't deny that there are far too many bureaucracies, but I view an imperial executive such as that envisioned by Woodrow Wilson to be a greater threat to our sovereignty. Case in point: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"On the be 2 party system. They are really marketing organizations that are heavily brandd to cut election costs by delivering voters. Would be hard to compete with"

I don't think they are nearly as entrenched as you think. The rise of the Tea Party movement only a decade ago was completely grass roots (before it was co-opted and destroyed by the Democrats). It gained national prominence in a very short time because it resonated across the nation. And it upended many RINO's in the elections. I also see the rise of the Libertarian party just this past election as further evidence that there is a large portion of voters who would welcome alternatives to the two-party system. I consider myself one of those disenchanted by both major parties.

There is also a substantial element of administrative overhead as well in the two major parties. Look at how Chairmanships are handled: you effectively pay to play by guaranteeing a certain amount of fundraising to get the position. And that money is for the Party - not the candidate! You can bet that competition here would force some dramatic changes.

The last point I would make is that given communications in today's age, there are no longer the needs for the bloated bureaucracies of Party mechanisms. It's far more important to have people willing to text their friends than voter mailing lists.

You've got it backwards. It not the case that you are a citizen of the U. S. unless a law says you aren't. Instead, you are a citizen of the U. S. only if a law says you are. Children of parents that are not citizens of the U. S. are SUBJECTS of the sovereign of their parents (not subjects of the U. S.).

Kind of a Hillary "It takes a village." attitude there. So if a US citizen couple has a baby, that baby must be raised by the people of the USA? Where is the human individuality with you? Being born under the laws of the USA does not imply being raised by the USA.

4. Campaign finance restrictions are so complex that politicians find ways to sell access to government one way or another. If y want to limit campaign contributions, limit the power of the government to take from one and give to another citizen

#3. Good point but my response to #3 would work better I think

Last point- president is also administrator if the bureaucracy

On the be 2 party system. They are really marketing organizations that are heavily brandd to cut election costs by delivering voters. Would be hard to compete with