# Countries that offer birthright citizenship..



## Philobeado

HERE IS A LIST OF ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE BABIES OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

1. United States:

That's right, every other modern developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies. Yet, most of U.S. news media and politicians the last two weeks have ridiculed the comments by some other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens.

Folks, the U.S. stands alone. There used to be all kinds of Developed countries that gave away their citizenship as freely as we do in the U.S.

But one by one they all have recognized the folly of that policy.

SOME MODERN COUNTRIES THAT RECENTLY ENDED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP POLICY:
 Canada was the last non-U.S. holdout. Illegal aliens stopped getting citizenship
 for their babies in 2009.
 Australia's birthright citizenship requirements are much more stringent than
 those of H.R. 1868 and took effect in 2007..
 New Zealand repealed in 2006
 Ireland repealed in 2005
 France repealed in 1993
 India repealed in 1987
 United Kingdom repealed in 1983
 Portugal repealed in 1981

The United States (or more accurately, the bleeding heart left) is the laughing stock of the modern world.

Only the U.S. values its citizenship so lowly as to distribute it promiscuously to the off-spring of foreign citizens visiting Disney World on tourist visas and to foreign citizens who have violated their promises on their visitor, work and student visas to stay illegally in the country, as well as to those who sneak across our borders.

It's not just Mexico and South America who are sending illegals across our borders. Currently, the CBP reports that of those apprehended illegally crossing the border, China is number one.

Wake up America!! Illegal aliens from China, India, Russia, the Middle East and a host of other nations are flooding the country. Ironically, most often these illegals and/or their offspring are given positions at the front of the line for Government jobs, contracts and assistance (thanks Obama!!).

Look around you! We are giving away our culture and economic and fiscal strength because our borders are not secure and we bestow citizenship irresponsibly.


----------



## JBeukema

So we should start doing whatever Europe does?


interesting argument...


----------



## Philobeado

Only 4 countries on that list are part of europe...



jbeukema said:


> so we should start doing whatever europe does?
> 
> 
> Interesting argument...


----------



## JBeukema

So we should do whatever Australia does?


----------



## Philobeado

That's the best you got?



JBeukema said:


> So we should do whatever Australia does?


----------



## JBeukema

your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'


----------



## jillian

Actually, in Australia, a child born on Australian soil automatically becomes a citizen at 10 regardless of the parent's status.

Is that something you'd be ok with?

you know, since you want to follow australia and all. and feel free to ask the germans how that whole blood citizenship worked out for them.



> Australia has an unusual compromise. Birth in the country doesn't, by itself, grant citizenship to a child, unless one of the parents is an Australian citizen. However, if the child resides in Australia until he/she turns 10, then the child automatically acquires citizenship, regardless of the citizenship/immigration status of the parents. Here's the link to the article about this:


 Australian nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://askville.amazon.com/United-States-countries-offer-citizenship-birth-aka-birthright/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=7563352]Other than the United States, what countries still offer citizenship by birth? (aka birthright citizenshi[/ame]


----------



## California Girl

We have never been a nation that follows other nations. They are not us and we are not them. I do wish people would learn that one basic principle. Stop whining about what other nations do - and that includes the constant 'every other civilized country on earth provides healthcare' crap. 

We are Americans. Fucking well act like it.


----------



## Philobeado

JBeukema said:


> your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'



The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

The United States is a very different place now with a shrinking job market and the birthright clause has outlived its purpose.


----------



## hedi01

There are episodes that leave, the use of a part of you that is connected to the people who suffer, even after they have become television. I think this series is innovative in the field of medical series, and I also think it is a must have or be one! ;-)


----------



## RadiomanATL

American exceptionalism.

Why should we change it?


----------



## hortysir

Besides not understanding a shittin' thing Hedi just said, there is not one country listed in the OP that I would have our country mirror


----------



## SFC Ollie

I agree that the 14th amendment should be looked at and changed. Why are we rewarding illegals with citizenship? I'm all for ending this "birthright" BS and shipping back any and all illegals to wherever they came from. Let's take care of Americans first.


----------



## democratsaint

Philobeado said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
> 
> Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
> 
> The United States is a very different place now with a shrinking job market and the birthright clause has outlived its purpose.
Click to expand...

the 2nd amendment was put in case of a slave revolt,and the south did not trust the north to send troops.so they wanted a militia to protect them from slaves.that has LONG out lived it usefulness,as we no longer have SLAVES.
shrinking job markets how so?maybe if your buddies would quit sending jobs overseas,or i got an idea ENFORCE all the laws,ie put those WHO HIRE illegals in jail as well,THEY broke laws too. did they NOT. who has profited from the illegals? corporations.with low wages,thus keeping other wages low.several times they have put up reforms,and the right has blocked them.build a wall?really,most illegal come in though the AIRPORT.that is the biggest waste of money. did not stop people in berlin,north korea and they were allowed to shoot to kill.they had mine fields.what about canada border?how about the oceans?you think a wall will stop anything?


----------



## hortysir

democratsaint said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
> 
> Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
> 
> The United States is a very different place now with a shrinking job market and the birthright clause has outlived its purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the 2nd amendment was put in case of a slave revolt,and the south did not trust the north to send troops.so they wanted a militia to protect them from slaves.that has LONG out lived it usefulness,as we no longer have SLAVES.
> shrinking job markets how so?maybe if your buddies would quit sending jobs overseas,or i got an idea ENFORCE all the laws,ie put those WHO HIRE illegals in jail as well,THEY broke laws too. did they NOT. who has profited from the illegals? corporations.with low wages,thus keeping other wages low.several times they have put up reforms,and the right has blocked them.build a wall?really,most illegal come in though the AIRPORT.that is the biggest waste of money. did not stop people in berlin,north korea and they were allowed to shoot to kill.they had mine fields.what about canada border?how about the oceans?you think a wall will stop anything?
Click to expand...

I would enjoy reading anything you have that supports the claim that the 2A was for protection from slaves


----------



## Unkotare

democratsaint said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
> 
> Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
> 
> The United States is a very different place now with a shrinking job market and the birthright clause has outlived its purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the 2nd amendment was put in case of a slave revolt...
Click to expand...



No, it wasn't.


----------



## Katzndogz

We must end birthright citizenship or we will only exist as a landmass.  There is no other way to end birth tourism.


----------



## DGS49

Should our immigration laws and practices benefit America, or the wretched ba starts who jump the borders?

How does granting citizenship to these people benefit the United States?

Clearly it does not.

The anchor baby phenomenon did not exist for 150 years after passage of the 14th, but only came to be after a USSC justice intentionally distorted the meaning of the operative clause...and no one until now has had the balls to address the hideous aftermath of that justice's act.

All hail The Donald.


----------



## Unkotare

What we need to do is control (not "close" or "seal") our borders, and enforce existing immigration law (ones passed by Congress, not declared by fiat from obama's ego).


----------



## JimBowie1958

democratsaint said:


> the 2nd amendment was put in case of a slave revolt,and the south did not trust the north to send troops.so they wanted a militia to protect them from slaves.



That is simply a bullshit lie.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."

2. In the case of _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

Is born in the United States

*Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
*
Has *parents that have permanent domicile and residence *in the United States

Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island.

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, *but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his *legal residence*, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognized in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, *with the exceptions or qualifications *(as old as the rule itself) of *children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes*. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, *includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States*. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, *so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here*; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

For reference:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/case.html

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/


----------



## rhodescholar

JBeukema said:


> So we should start doing whatever Europe does?  interesting argument...



Given that our constitution is based upon european principles, like the British common law, where is the shock here?


----------



## rhodescholar

JBeukema said:


> your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'



Do you have an argument, or just trolling the thread like a fucking turd?


----------



## rhodescholar

RadiomanATL said:


> American exceptionalism.
> 
> Why should we change it?



Just because other nations are doing something does not mean we should avoid it.  The british began using radar in ww2, should we just stop doing so?  WTF kind of argument is that?

The fact is that if the US does not end birthright citizenship, there will not be a single country called the US in 25-50 years.


----------



## Unkotare

rhodescholar said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American exceptionalism.
> 
> Why should we change it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because other nations are doing something does not mean we should avoid it.  The british began using radar in ww2, should we just stop doing so?  WTF kind of argument is that?
> 
> The fact is that if the US does not end birthright citizenship, there will not be a single country called the US in 25-50 years.
Click to expand...






Yes there will. Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## rhodescholar

Unkotare said:


> Yes there will. Don't be ridiculous.


 
The trends favor my claim.  Either there will be a mass dystopian shithole of poor people with a few barons running the country, or it will have split apart into separate sections/cantons, probably based upon race/ethnicity, the way the rest of the world operates.

There is simply not enough money in the country's middle class to support the masses of impoverished filth sneaking into the country from the 3rd world.  That is a fact.


----------



## LilOlLady

*Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment*
*

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, 

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S.,

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the **United States and Canada** as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.
*
*American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.*
*Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment
========================================
(Although the constitution has been amended 33 times, automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is not a constitutional right and does not have to be amended but correctly interpreted which exclude Anchor Babies or Jackpot Babies)*


----------



## Unkotare

rhodescholar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there will. Don't be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trends favor my claim.  Either there will be a mass dystopian shithole of poor people with a few barons running the country, or it will have split apart into separate sections/cantons, probably based upon race/ethnicity, the way the rest of the world operates.
> 
> There is simply not enough money in the country's middle class to support the masses of impoverished filth sneaking into the country from the 3rd world.  That is a fact.
Click to expand...




Silly nonsense like that has no place in a serious discussion.


----------



## rhodescholar

Unkotare said:


> Silly nonsense like that has no place in a serious discussion.



In your opinion, not to the adults here.  Stop trolling like as asshole, and leave the thread.


----------



## Unkotare

rhodescholar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly nonsense like that has no place in a serious discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, not to the adults here.
Click to expand...



"Adults" go screech like panicked little school girls about "they country will be gone! EEEeeeee!!!"


----------



## Agit8r

Canada still has birthright citizenship:

Canadian nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But why would we expect Know-Nothings to know anything?


----------



## JakeStarkey

These countries are distinctly different to America and its narrative.

*Countries that offer birthright citizenship..*


----------



## rhodescholar

Unkotare said:


> "Adults" go screech like panicked little school girls about "they country will be gone! EEEeeeee!!!"



In the words of the late, great, Immortan Joe, I look at you and say: "mediocre."


----------



## Unkotare

rhodescholar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Adults" go screech like panicked little school girls about "they country will be gone! EEEeeeee!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of the late, great, Immortan Joe, I look at you and say: "mediocre."
Click to expand...




Good for you. Now calm down.


----------



## JimBowie1958

rhodescholar said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly nonsense like that has no place in a serious discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, not to the adults here.  Stop trolling like as asshole, and leave the thread.
Click to expand...


He cant help it; he *is* an asshole.


----------



## JimBowie1958

lol.


----------



## paddymurphy

Philobeado said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> your argument is 'everyone else is doing it'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.
> 
> Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
> 
> The United States is a very different place now with a shrinking job market and the birthright clause has outlived its purpose.
Click to expand...

And that, of course, is the only rational argument that can be made on this issue.  Recognize that birthright citizenship is the law and then make the argument to change it.  Trump, unfortunately, is not as bright as you.


----------



## paddymurphy

JimBowie1958 said:


> lol.


Of course, she misrepresents what one of the drafters of the 14th amendment said and that the Supreme Court has already held that the 14th requires birthright citizenship.


----------



## paddymurphy

JimBowie1958 said:


> Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.
> 
> 1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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."
> 
> 2. In the case of _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
> 
> Is born in the United States
> 
> *Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
> *
> Has *parents that have permanent domicile and residence *in the United States
> 
> Has parents that are in the United States for business
> 
> The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]
> 
> As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island.
> 
> https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States
> 
> These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.
> 
> The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats
> 
> What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:
> 
> "118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, *but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
> 
> http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
> 
> But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?
> 
> "Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his *legal residence*, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.
> 
> Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> And SCOTUS also recognized in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.
> 
> "93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, *with the exceptions or qualifications *(as old as the rule itself) of *children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes*. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, *includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States*. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."
> 
> But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?
> 
> That is addressed in Section 96:
> 
> "96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, *so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here*; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States."
> 
> An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore their children born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> For reference:
> 
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III
> 
> http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
> 
> http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/
> 
> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/case.html
> 
> http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/



You, and your "sources" are full of shit.  

In Plyler v. Doe, all nine justices agreed with Justice Brennan's conclusion that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that all foreigners or aliens, except those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, if a person is born in the US, they are citizens. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, wrote: 

_Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was_

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

_Id._ at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

_Id._ at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. _See_ C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

So, contrary to the idiotic assertions that Justice Brennan relied on the book by C. Bouve, he relied on the detailed analysis of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark as to the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and his conclusion that any person here, other than a diplomat, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, if they give birth to a child here, that child is a citizen. 

Chief Justice Burger, writing for the minority, agreed:
" I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state."

In INS v. Rios Pineda, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision included the following:

"Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler's efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. *By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.* A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

You clowns can practice you amateur legal analysis all you want but the fact remains that the United States Supreme Court, and every other Court in this nation, accept as settled law that any person born in the United States, regardless of the legality of the Mother's presence, is natural born United States Citizen. Two stalwart conservatives, George Will and Charles Krauthammer agree. You lost this debate over a century ago but are too stupid to realize it. Today, there will be children born to illegal immigrants. They will be given birth certificates that identify them as American Citizens. They will eventually get Social Security Numbers. When they are 18, they will register to vote and register for selective service. Should they desire to travel abroad, they will get passports identifying them as US citizens. For all of the mental masturbation you and your like minded friends have engaged in on this thread and others the last couple of says, that remains a fact that you cannot change. You cannot take away from the millions of native born Americans whose parents happen to have entered here illegally their citizenship. And there is no support in Congress for either passing a law to see of the Supreme Court is willing to revisit and overturn a precedent that has lasted for over 120 years or seeking to amend the constitution. So, go ahead and pretend to have a clue about Constitutional law while illegal aliens will continue to give birth to American Citizens who are likely, when grown, to have far better understanding of and appreciation for the things that make this nation great than you do.


----------



## rhodescholar

paddymurphy said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> You clowns can practice you amateur legal analysis all you want but the fact remains that the United States Supreme Court, and every other Court in this nation, accept as settled law that any person born in the United States, regardless of the legality of the Mother's presence, is natural born United States Citizen. Two stalwart conservatives, George Will and Charles Krauthammer agree. You lost this debate over a century ago but are too stupid to realize it. Today, there will be children born to illegal immigrants. They will be given birth certificates that identify them as American Citizens. They will eventually get Social Security Numbers. When they are 18, they will register to vote and register for selective service. Should they desire to travel abroad, they will get passports identifying them as US citizens. For all of the mental masturbation you and your like minded friends have engaged in on this thread and others the last couple of says, that remains a fact that you cannot change. You cannot take away from the millions of native born Americans whose parents happen to have entered here illegally their citizenship. And there is no support in Congress for either passing a law to see of the Supreme Court is willing to revisit and overturn a precedent that has lasted for over 120 years or seeking to amend the constitution. So, go ahead and pretend to have a clue about Constitutional law while illegal aliens will continue to give birth to American Citizens who are likely, when grown, to have far better understanding of and appreciation for the things that make this nation great than you do.



No support in congress?  1-there are already bills that have been put forth recently that do exactly that 2-when the public becomes further educated on how much the illegal aliens are costing the american taxpayer, you will see fucking riots like you have not seen before.  One more fucking murder like the one in SF by an illegal and its hammer time.  Once people gain an understanding of what the illegal invasion is costing this country, there will be a huge push to terminate the 14th amendment mis-reading, and a complete stop to the welfare, section 8 housing free education/ESL classes, free lunches, etc.  

You want to provide that shit, asshole - YOU fucking take them back to their countries and YOU pay for it.


----------

