Readers React: Why the birthright citizenship question isn’t settled

To the editor: It is with trepidation that I question the conclusion of David Rivkin and John Yoo, two of the best legal minds in America. That opponents of the 14th Amendment’s ambiguous wording on birthright citizenship raised the very questions that Yoo and Rivkin claim to be answering is no evidence that their answer is correct. (“Ignore Trump — the issue of birthright citizenship has been settled,” Op-Ed, Sept. 6)

Also, reliance on a mere 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court is hardly the strongest straw, particularly as that decision merely provided that, as long as the child is here, he or she is to be treated humanely with provided education; it did not decide the child was a citizen.

Finally, the article mentions, but does not reconcile, the accepted rule that children of diplomats born in the U.S. are not citizens by birth, even though that exception has been grafted onto the 14th Amendment. That exception, denying birth citizenship to children born to parents who disclaim allegiance to American law, is analogous to children of parents who disclaim allegiance to American law by entering or overstaying in violation of American law.

Can a Supreme Court ruling be predicted with certainty? No. But it is an issue that can properly be decided against birth citizenship for those illegally in this country.

Gerald Walpin, New York

..

To the editor: Just consider it like this, people: The 14th Amendment was once a noble gesture. It was once an attempt by our nation to help others, those perhaps of harsh background, to give them something they may not have otherwise had.

Well, that party is over.

Using a very well-oiled criminal machine, people now enter our country illegally intending to give birth and exploit our financial resources. What was once a gift is now being stolen from the shelf, and we must stop it while we can.

Jake Henn, San Diego

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook