# "Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?



## DGS49

"Section 1.  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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.


----------



## Cosmos

_"Section 1. 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."_

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.


----------



## Cosmos

Not tourists.  Not diplomats.  And certainly not illegal aliens that came in illegally simply to exploit our system.

Legal residents or citizens.


----------



## DGS49

What 8216 Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof 8217 Really Means
I'm RIGHT, by golly.  Read the article.

The 14th Amendment was phrased as it was in contra-distinction to the English principle of citizenship by birth (wherein the King claimed ownership of anyone born within the realm).  Subject to the jurisdiction referred to aliens on U.S. soil who had renounced their citizenship abroad, and owed no allegiance to any other country.

The Anchor Baby phenomenon is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Cosmos

I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?


----------



## LilOlLady

Anchor Baby’ Outrage:
 Americans Pay BILLIONS for Illegal Alien Births (Video)

If Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s wife gave birth in a Washington, D.C. hospital, no one would ever argue that the child was an American citizen.

Similarly, it is ludicrous to state that a Mexican citizen, such as the woman in the story below, who illegally swims across the Rio Grande in labor and gives birth in a Texas hospital, has sired an American citizen. But that’s what we currently do, because of a *shameful perversion of the 14th Amendment.*

Some inaccuracies in the video. It grossly underestimates the annual* costs for U.S. taxpayers, and the impact on hospitals.* Medicaid alone paid *$2.2 billion* last year to partially reimburse hospitals for u*npaid illegal alien delivery bills*, double the news report’s estimate.

And the amount not reimbursed to hospitals is in the tens of billions. A staggering *84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close* their doors because of unpaid bills by illegal aliens. Hospitals which manage to remain open, pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which translates into m*ore out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums for Americans.*

 8216 Anchor Baby 8217 Outrage Americans Pay BILLIONS for Illegal Alien Births Video Top Right News


Nothing good about illegal immigration for US or Mexico. Anchor babies are also ciizens of Mexico and is Mexixco's future. Take them away and Mexico is suffers. Mexico is capable of taking care of their own. We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
Nevada just got 6 billion for pre schooler and most of them of children of ilegal aleins and not guarentee they will become productive to the eoncomy or end up in prison or in gangs.
Immigration reform fixes nothing.


----------



## DGS49

A court challenge would require a suit by a state attorney general - say of Texas - who sues the federal government for reimbursement of costs spent to educate and otherwise care for anchor babies.  The claim would be that the Feds have erroneously declared these fukkers to be citizens, and eligible for state benefits.

Uphill battle, to be sure, even if the USSC were populated by people who take the Constitution seriously.  Which it is not.


----------



## Unkotare

DGS49 said:


> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change....



That is not the case.


----------



## Syriusly

DGS49 said:


> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.



The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States. 

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

LilOlLady said:


> We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
> .



Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.

This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...


Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
Click to expand...


You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? 

Children of diplomats. 

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Pretty much everyone else is.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
Click to expand...


No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.


----------



## Roadrunner

DGS49 said:


> What 8216 Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof 8217 Really Means
> I'm RIGHT, by golly.  Read the article.
> 
> The 14th Amendment was phrased as it was in contra-distinction to the English principle of citizenship by birth (wherein the King claimed ownership of anyone born within the realm).  Subject to the jurisdiction referred to aliens on U.S. soil who had renounced their citizenship abroad, and owed no allegiance to any other country.
> 
> The Anchor Baby phenomenon is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.


The Amendment needs to be repealed, and at best replaced with a version not passed at bayonet point.

It is a monstrosity of the monstrosity of Reconstruction.


----------



## Conservative65

Cosmos said:


> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.


 
That clause was designed to address former slaves.  It was written with the intention of classifying them as citizens instead of property as the Dred Scott decision had done just a few years before.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...




Syriusly said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...

 
The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.


----------



## Conservative65

DGS49 said:


> What 8216 Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof 8217 Really Means
> I'm RIGHT, by golly.  Read the article.
> 
> The 14th Amendment was phrased as it was in contra-distinction to the English principle of citizenship by birth (wherein the King claimed ownership of anyone born within the realm).  Subject to the jurisdiction referred to aliens on U.S. soil who had renounced their citizenship abroad, and owed no allegiance to any other country.
> 
> The Anchor Baby phenomenon is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.


 
The current interpretation of that clause in no way matches the intent behind it being there.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
Click to expand...


The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
Click to expand...


Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States. 

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies. 

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.


----------



## Flopper

DGS49 said:


> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.


If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
Click to expand...


You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
Click to expand...


Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.    

Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States. 

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
Click to expand...

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
Click to expand...


WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
Click to expand...


Do you have a reading comprehension problem?   I already said that anyone on our soil is subject to our laws.    But that doesn't make them a citizen of this country.   I already explained to you that the parents of illegal aliens aren't subject to our full jurisdiction just as diplomats aren't  so why would the U.S. born of diplomats not be citizens but the spawn of illegals are?    You're the stupid one here.   I suspect an agenda on your part.    What is it?


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
Click to expand...


There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
Click to expand...

 
The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
Click to expand...

 
Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!   They are subject to their parent's country.  Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point.   Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc.   If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and".    No need for an amendment.  It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
Click to expand...

 
Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.
> 
> This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......
Click to expand...

 
Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here.  Let the baby stay, you can support it.  Send the illegal parents back.  I don't care that they are separated.  THEIR actions caused the result.  Let them deal with it.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
Click to expand...



Your continued strawman arguments are duly noted.  Even if changing birthright citizenship wouldn't reduce illegal immigration by itself (but it would) it would put honor back into our citizenship.    Most modern industrialized countries have changed their birthright citizenship qualifications to at least one parent having to be a citizen of their country.    I don't recall all the horror stories happening in their countries as you paint here because of that.   We have often had to change laws for the well being of our country.    This is no different.  Keep grasping at straws it's fun to watch. Again, just what is your agenda?   Bleeding heart liberal or an ethnocentric that desires the transformation of our country via illegal immigration and anchor babies?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.
> 
> This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here.  Let the baby stay, you can support it.  Send the illegal parents back.  I don't care that they are separated.  THEIR actions caused the result.  Let them deal with it.
Click to expand...


So you are in favor of invading Mexico like we invaded Iraq?


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.
> 
> This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here.  Let the baby stay, you can support it.  Send the illegal parents back.  I don't care that they are separated.  THEIR actions caused the result.  Let them deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of invading Mexico like we invaded Iraq?
Click to expand...

 
I didn't say anything about invading Mexico.  We whipped their asses once and now they're pissed.  The problem is traitors like you want to make up for it. 

I'm in favor of putting armed guards at the border and shooting the illegals that try to sneak in.  It will greatly reduce the anchor baby problem and send a message to those smart enough to figure out they need to come here according to the law instead of sneaking in and shitting out a turd.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
Click to expand...


Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself? 

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader. 

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you. 

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.
> 
> This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you want to give a pass to a bunch of illegals invading MY country simply because they shit out a turd anchor baby when they got here.  Let the baby stay, you can support it.  Send the illegal parents back.  I don't care that they are separated.  THEIR actions caused the result.  Let them deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are in favor of invading Mexico like we invaded Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about invading Mexico.
Click to expand...


That was what my post was about- so your response was just an irrelevant, uneducated rant.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.
> 
> The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Children of diplomats.
> 
> If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Pretty much everyone else is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
Click to expand...


See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
Click to expand...

 
I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son. 

The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it. 

I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads. 

You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
Click to expand...

 
Apparently, you can't.  Any baby born to an illegal that came here against the law then gets to stay is a turd that looks like a baby.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you can't.  Any baby born to an illegal that came here against the law then gets to stay is a turd that looks like a baby.
Click to expand...



Yeah....must be a particularly Conservative mental issue that can't distinguish between a turd and a baby.

Sad.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
Click to expand...


Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.

You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.

You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.

Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
Click to expand...

 
They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in. 

It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, you can't.  Any baby born to an illegal that came here against the law then gets to stay is a turd that looks like a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....must be a particularly Conservative mental issue that can't distinguish between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Sad.
Click to expand...

 
The child of an illegal that came here to have the baby is a turd.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
Click to expand...

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.  
Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...

 
The vast majority of Liberals don't want to see them deported.  Those that want the laws applied want to see the assholes gone.  You don't reward criminals.

So you are OK with them entering illegally?

Over the past 50 years we've spent trillions on the war on poverty yet poverty still exists and is widespread yet people like you want to continue handing leeches money. 

The new approach on illegals is to put armed guards at the border and defend it from the invasion.  The smart ones will learn and the stupid ones won't.  Either way, they don't come.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is very clear that anchor babies are not deemed citizens of this country based on the wording of the 14th.   Now who's the third grader?   It saddens me to see people like you wanting our country being ran over by immigration lawbreakers and their anchors because you refuse to see the truth of the 14th and the writer's intent even when it is explained to you.   No new amendment is needed to fix it.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
Click to expand...


Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.

Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.
> 
> It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.
Click to expand...


You should get a refund from your beautician college.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.

You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is very clear that anchor babies are not deemed citizens of this country based on the wording of the 14th..
Click to expand...


Well lets look at it again- we can break it down.

The sentence in question:

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. 


*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
*
Any disagreement on that part? or this part:

*are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.* 
*
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, 
*
This I believe is where you claim otherwise. 

_What is 'jurisdiction'?_

_1_
_ the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2
a *:*  the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate

b *:*  the power or right to exercise authority *:* control
3
*:*  the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
_
*So how are children born in the United States of foreign parents- not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Within the United States, the United States has the right to apply and interpret the laws- not any foreign country. The United States has sole sovereign power within the United States.

So how exactly are these children not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
*


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent was not to do what you said.  It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it.  It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.
> 
> If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is very clear that anchor babies are not deemed citizens of this country based on the wording of the 14th..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets look at it again- we can break it down.
> 
> The sentence in question:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> *All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
> *
> Any disagreement on that part? or this part:
> 
> *are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.*
> *
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
> *
> This I believe is where you claim otherwise.
> 
> _What is 'jurisdiction'?_
> 
> _1_
> _ the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law_
> _2_
> _a *:*  the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate_
> 
> _b *:*  the power or right to exercise authority *:* control_
> _3_
> _*:*  the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised_
> 
> *So how are children born in the United States of foreign parents- not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Within the United States, the United States has the right to apply and interpret the laws- not any foreign country. The United States has sole sovereign power within the United States.
> 
> So how exactly are these children not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
Click to expand...

 
You keep missing the part of ORIGINAL INTENT.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?  I know.  There were very few, if any, limits on immigration in 1868 when the 14th was passed.  That means for you idiots, that there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant like exists today.   The current and misused view of the 14th Amendment is fairly new and is the unintended consequence of a a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals, including moderate ones, as a Liberal is still a Liberal despite the degree of worthlessness they have the more left they get.    The term anchor baby is something that describes how the baby born here as a sole result of a criminal act is given citizenship and pulls the mother here despite the criminal having come here illegally. 

Supreme Court decisions written in 1884 (Slaughterhouse Cases and Elks v. Wilkins) supported that the status of the parents determined the citizenship of the child. 

When you want to talk about jurisdiction, apply it as it was intended not the way you want it applied.  Those that wrote the Amendment believed as I do not as you bleeding hearts do yet you think what you say it means it how it should be applied.  I'll the take the interpretation of those that wrote it over someone like you.  That you want it to mean something different doesn't take away what it was truly designed to do and it was never designed to be used like you think it should.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, let the anchor baby stay but ship the ILLEGAL parents back.  If you want to go by what the law says, that's what happens to illegals.  I don't care if they ever see that child again.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT when it was written was quite clear.  It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent.  They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT.    Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them.  Typical Liberal traitor.
> 
> The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it.  You're as bad as they are.  You may even be one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.
> 
> It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should get a refund from your beautician college.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.
> 
> You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.
Click to expand...

 
It's not my interpretation of intent.  It's those that wrote the Amendment.  I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied.  You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.


----------



## Dot Com

Cosmos said:


> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.


I agree.

The legislators were smart but this is not what they intended.


----------



## Conservative65

Dot Com said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> The legislators were smart but this is not what they intended.
Click to expand...

 
There were two Supreme Court Cin 1884 that deal with this.  The SlaughterHouse Cases and Elks v. Wilkins.  Both basically stated that  he citizenship of the child was based on that of the parents.  It wasn't until the mid 1960s that the anchor baby concept misinterpreted it.  Even those that wrote it indicated it wasn't designed to give citizenship  to those born here  is their parents were foreign.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.
> 
> 
> 
> If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood.  I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.
> 
> If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood.   Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth.  This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards.  We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.    One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship.   The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.   It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods.  It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
Click to expand...

 
Illegal immigration will stop when we place armed guards at the border and shoot the illegal invaders.  It will happen one of two way.  The smart ones will learn not to try and the idiots won't make it in.


----------



## Dot Com

it is odd how this is the only country I know that doesn't immediately deport foreigners once discovered.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was.  Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship.    I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction.   No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen.  You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens?   Are you really this stupid?   It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
Click to expand...


*During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*

Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?

Mark


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that.  You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship.  And what might that proof be?  Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status.  And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the  US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
Click to expand...

Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.

The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....


----------



## Flopper

Dot Com said:


> it is odd how this is the only country I know that doesn't immediately deport foreigners once discovered.


Nope. Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. All have illegal immigration and illegals living in the country,  Their problem is not as bad as US but their laws are bit more realistic.

Mexico has a big illegal immigration problem with over 200,000 illegal crossing a year and a low deportation rate.   Some end up in the US but most remain in Mexico.


----------



## Spare_change

Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it. 

There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.

When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.

However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.


----------



## Syriusly

Spare_change said:


> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> [URL='http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html']The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution[/URL]
Click to expand...


Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


_ 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*.

_
*So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
_


_


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.
> 
> It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should get a refund from your beautician college.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.
> 
> You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my interpretation of intent.  It's those that wrote the Amendment.  I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied.  You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.
Click to expand...


You should get a refund from your beautician college.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.

You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.

As the Supreme Court noted in Wong Kim Ark- the language is very clear:

_ 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."
_


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
Click to expand...


... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

_"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." 
 The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens. 

 Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that: 

 The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. 

 In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment. 

 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_

------------------------------------------ 

Let me ask you a simple question .... if we are to accept your carte blanche interpretation of the 14th Amendment, why doesn't the INS ask pregnancy status before issuing a tourist visa? Wouldn't it seem logical that the simplest route for someone wishing to come to the US would be to get pregnant, then come to the US, deliver an anchor baby legally, and avoid all the legal folderol?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DGS49 SAID:

"As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens."

Incorrect.

14th Amendment jurisprudence correctly acknowledges the inalienable rights that manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Because our rights are inalienable, because they are a fundamental component of the human condition, when a person is born within the jurisdiction of the United States, government is compelled by the Constitution to recognize that person as a citizen and afford him his right to due process.

Moreover, the condition of one's parents is of no consequence when he is born a citizen in the United States, he cannot be subject to punitive measures – such as denying him his citizenship and right to due process – merely as a consequence of his parents' bad acts (_Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. _(1972)).

The wisdom of the Framers of the 14th Amendment is abundantly clear, where the rights of citizens are safeguarded from the cruel and capricious whims of partisan politics, unelected bureaucrats and administrators, and those who exhibit unwarranted hostility toward racial and ethnic minorities. “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clause[] of...the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight.” (_Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003)); consequently we see in the Amendment not only the wisdom of its Framers, but their humility, their forbearance, and their determination to fulfill the promise of the Founding Generation to ordain a Republic whose citizens are in fact subject solely to the rule of law.


----------



## Dekster

DGS49 said:


> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.



I think in school they said that babies born on boats are considered born on the soil of the nation where the boat is from under US law.


----------



## Conservative65

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.
> 
> Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.
> 
> The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.
> 
> For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

 
Perhaps you should read what those who WROTE the Amendment INTENDED for it to do.  It damn sure wasn't to give children born here solely as a result of a criminal act citizenship.  It's retards like you that want anyone and everyone coming here no matter what and no matter how.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
Click to expand...

 
Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?
> 
> Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.
> 
> You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.
> 
> While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.
> 
> You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.
> 
> It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should get a refund from your beautician college.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.
> 
> You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my interpretation of intent.  It's those that wrote the Amendment.  I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied.  You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.
Click to expand...



If that's your _opinion_, what have you done about it besides bitch and moan on the internet?


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship.     Are you nuts?   No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive.   Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident.   There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country  You're grasping at straws now.
> 
> Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify.   That would cut off any means of support here.   Just what is your agenda in all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
Click to expand...


Isn 't it funny that our own poor are a net drain on our economy but that the illegals, somehow, are not? While illegals can become productive members of our society, they won't, because most are undereducated and simply cannot afford to pay their own way.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.
> 
> When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.
> 
> However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.
Click to expand...


Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:

*"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

*


----------



## 80zephyr

Conservative65 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are YOU this stupid?   Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.
> 
> Wrong again,    "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.    Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction..    They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland.  Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should read what those who WROTE the Amendment INTENDED for it to do.  It damn sure wasn't to give children born here solely as a result of a criminal act citizenship.  It's retards like you that want anyone and everyone coming here no matter what and no matter how.
Click to expand...



What?? Maybe you should read my post again. It not only agrees with you, it cites the belief of the author of the citizenship clause to agree with you as well.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are this stupid.
> 
> What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?
> 
> They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.
> 
> If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.
> 
> Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.
> 
> When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.
> 
> However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> *
Click to expand...


I read it just fine-

*"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"*
*
Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.

*


----------



## Syriusly

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
Click to expand...


Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.

What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.

The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.

But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting you bring up bank robbers.  A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail.  However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd  called an anchor babyh while they were here.  Then, you want to let the criminal stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.
> 
> When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.
> 
> However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it just fine-
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.
> *
Click to expand...



So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?

Mark
*
*


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.

A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".


----------



## Dekster

People take the citizenship nonsense way too seriously.


----------



## Oldglory1

Dekster said:


> People take the citizenship nonsense way too seriously.



What's that suppose to mean?   Foreigners here illegally are tapping into our welfare coffers thru their so-called citizens children and it is costing us billions not to mention that it makes a mockery out of our citizenship.  They will grow up and vote for policies that are not in the best interests of our country.  They will think that because their parents violated our immigration laws that lawlessness is ok.


----------



## Spare_change

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
Click to expand...


Can you provide some info on this law? I'd be interested in supporting it ... depending, of course, on exactly what it says.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
Click to expand...


Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining. 

Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.

IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.
> 
> Oh and I can read the Constitution.
> 
> And actually believe in the Constitution.
> 
> Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.
> 
> When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.
> 
> However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it just fine-
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.

Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen. 

Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
Click to expand...


Ah the American 'patriots' who call any American they disagree with a 'traitor'.......

Just one more example of their lack of reading of the Constitution.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator **Jacob M. Howard** of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes **Native Americans** who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
> 
> Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.
> 
> When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.
> 
> However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it just fine-
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
Click to expand...


The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.
> 
> When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.
> 
> However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it just fine-
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

*Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers*
*
Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
Click to expand...


As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?


----------



## 80zephyr

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
Click to expand...


Hmm, I wonder if it was considered whining when the "right" to an abortion was passed? Or gay marriage?

Mark


----------



## Dekster

Oldglory1 said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> 
> People take the citizenship nonsense way too seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's that suppose to mean?   Foreigners here illegally are tapping into our welfare coffers thru their so-called citizens children and it is costing us billions not to mention that it makes a mockery out of our citizenship.  They will grow up and vote for policies that are not in the best interests of our country.  They will think that because their parents violated our immigration laws that lawlessness is ok.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point with your hyperbole.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration.  While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:
> 
> First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.
> 
> Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?
> 
> Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
> punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.
> 
> Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.
> 
> In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
> http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
Click to expand...

There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
Click to expand...


The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I wonder if it was considered whining when the "right" to an abortion was passed? Or gay marriage?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


I have seen lots of whining about abortion and gay marriage. 

Does it remind me of the whining about so called 'anchor babies'- yeah some of it does.


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I wonder if it was considered whining when the "right" to an abortion was passed? Or gay marriage?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen lots of whining about abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> Does it remind me of the whining about so called 'anchor babies'- yeah some of it does.
Click to expand...


So then tell me, did the whining by the left get the results they desired? If so, then why hold it against the right to use your tactics against you?

Mark


Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
Click to expand...

That would be my preferred  solution.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
Click to expand...


LOL.

Look- if you are actually trying to affect legislation for what you believe in- good for you.  I do not call that 'whining' I call that taking action. 

And I am not saying you are not free to whine about anything you feel like whining about- but like a 'typical' conservative- you just cry 'freedom of speech' when anyone is critical of what you post. 

Freedom of speech(which doesn't even apply to these boards) is not freedom from criticism.

You can criticize my posts as much as you want- I won't whine about 'freedom of speech'.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I wonder if it was considered whining when the "right" to an abortion was passed? Or gay marriage?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen lots of whining about abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> Does it remind me of the whining about so called 'anchor babies'- yeah some of it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then tell me, did the whining by the left get the results they desired? If so, then why hold it against the right to use your tactics against you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be my preferred  solution.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Oh I was talking about the whining by the right about abortion and gay rights.


----------



## Conservative65

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I wonder if it was considered whining when the "right" to an abortion was passed? Or gay marriage?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen lots of whining about abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> Does it remind me of the whining about so called 'anchor babies'- yeah some of it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then tell me, did the whining by the left get the results they desired? If so, then why hold it against the right to use your tactics against you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be my preferred  solution.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

 
As long as someone like Obama is in office, there will be more.  They have no reason to not come here.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
Click to expand...

 
When are we going to hold the criminals that come here illegally accountable for their violations?


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.
Click to expand...

 
Not if we continue to give them amnesty.

That you won't list the ones that raped, murdered, robbed, etc. discredits your entire post.  Making excuses as to why you won't discredits a traitors like you personally.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Cosmos said:


> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.



What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.
> 
> The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.
> 
> I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.
> 
> You should saddened traitor.  It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment.  It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.
> 
> It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should get a refund from your beautician college.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.
> 
> You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my interpretation of intent.  It's those that wrote the Amendment.  I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied.  You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that's your _opinion_, what have you done about it besides bitch and moan on the internet?
Click to expand...

 
It's not an opinion if it's based on what those that wrote the Amendment said it was and wasn't designed to do.  It's called fact.  If you call that bitching, it makes you the only bitch here boy.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
Click to expand...

 
It's not what it means to me but what the intent was of it by those that wrote it.  They made it clear and the Supreme Court upheld in subsequent cases that it wasn't intended to be used as you bleeding hearts want to use it.  You don't have to believe me but if you go against the intent of those that wrote it , you go against history.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I wonder if it was considered whining when the "right" to an abortion was passed? Or gay marriage?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen lots of whining about abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> Does it remind me of the whining about so called 'anchor babies'- yeah some of it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then tell me, did the whining by the left get the results they desired? If so, then why hold it against the right to use your tactics against you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be my preferred  solution.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I was talking about the whining by the right about abortion and gay rights.
Click to expand...


Well, we had nothing to whine about until the left whined and got their way, correct?

Mark


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
Click to expand...


Congress can change the law, but it is up to the courts to interpret the law.


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
Click to expand...



You have every right to whine, but everybody else has the right to tell you how childish it is. By all means whine away.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay.   I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back.  Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them.  It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.
Click to expand...


So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you?    My what a wonderful American YOU are!    Where did you learn your code of ethics?

You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here.    And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here.   Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are we going to hold the criminals that come here illegally accountable for their violations?
Click to expand...

ICE conducted a total of 368,644 deportations in 2013.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Look- if you are actually trying to affect legislation for what you believe in- good for you.  I do not call that 'whining' I call that taking action.
> 
> And I am not saying you are not free to whine about anything you feel like whining about- but like a 'typical' conservative- you just cry 'freedom of speech' when anyone is critical of what you post.
> 
> Freedom of speech(which doesn't even apply to these boards) is not freedom from criticism.
> 
> You can criticize my posts as much as you want- I won't whine about 'freedom of speech'.
Click to expand...


And what are you doing other than whining about a difference of opinion from yours in here?    Hypocrite!    Don't want to read a difference of opinion then leave and don't let the door hit you in the a**.   No one is forcing you to read the posts or to reply to them.   I have heard plenty of so-called whining (by your lame description) from the left but then again I believe everyone has the right to express their opinion and not label it as whining.


----------



## Oldglory1

Wry Catcher said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
Click to expand...


Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldglory1 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
Click to expand...




Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are we going to hold the criminals that come here illegally accountable for their violations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ICE conducted a total of 368,644 deportations in 2013.
Click to expand...


It's a drop in the bucket compared to how many are here.   Obama has stopped the deportation of all illegals unless they are "convicted" criminals.


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
Click to expand...


Grow up ---- trying to have an intelligent discussion about a point is not 'whining' - if you don't want to discuss the issue, than don't --- but you don't get to try to stifle others from doing it.


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it just fine-
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
Click to expand...


So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Look- if you are actually trying to affect legislation for what you believe in- good for you.  I do not call that 'whining' I call that taking action.
> 
> And I am not saying you are not free to whine about anything you feel like whining about- but like a 'typical' conservative- you just cry 'freedom of speech' when anyone is critical of what you post.
> 
> Freedom of speech(which doesn't even apply to these boards) is not freedom from criticism.
> 
> You can criticize my posts as much as you want- I won't whine about 'freedom of speech'.
Click to expand...


Actually, you ARE "... free to whine about anything you feel like whining about ..."


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
Click to expand...


........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.


----------



## BULLDOG

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
Click to expand...


It's your silly claim. Where is the link?


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
Click to expand...


I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.


----------



## BULLDOG

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
Click to expand...




Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
Click to expand...


As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?


----------



## Unkotare

Spare_change said:


> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.




How many of them are Supreme Court justices?


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within  the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
Click to expand...


You know, maybe you CAN learn something, after all ... 

I'm going to show you just how embarrassed you should be about your lack of academic curiosity. I gave you a chance to learn, but your ego was more important .... 

Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment s First Section
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT (follow the cites to identify the constitutional scholars)
Protection, Liberty And the Fourteenth Amendment, by Steven J. Heyman, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Whence Comes Section One? The Abolitionist Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Randy Barnett, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

Now, you DID learn something, didn't you? You learned that your lethargy allowed you to make an ass out of yourself.


----------



## Spare_change

Unkotare said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
Click to expand...


Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.


----------



## Unkotare

Spare_change said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.
Click to expand...



So, your answer is 'none' then?


----------



## Spare_change

Unkotare said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your answer is 'none' then?
Click to expand...

Huh? Isn't that what I said? No Supreme Court Justice has the opportunity to offer an opinion in recent times.

Words too big?


----------



## Unkotare

Spare_change said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your answer is 'none' then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Isn't that what I said??
Click to expand...



Actually, you have just been avoiding a direct answer.


----------



## 80zephyr

Unkotare said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
Click to expand...


Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

*"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the 
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested 
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out 
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in 
which it was passed." 
  Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The 
  Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.
> 
> You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.
> 
> Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.
> 
> It's doesn't need to be changed.  It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should get a refund from your beautician college.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.
> 
> You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my interpretation of intent.  It's those that wrote the Amendment.  I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied.  You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that's your _opinion_, what have you done about it besides bitch and moan on the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion if it's based on what those that wrote the Amendment said it was and wasn't designed to do.  It's called fact.  If you call that bitching, it makes you the only bitch here boy.
Click to expand...



You didn't answer the question, Daffy.


----------



## BULLDOG

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
Click to expand...



Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if we continue to give them amnesty.
> 
> That you won't list the ones that raped, murdered, robbed, etc. discredits your entire post.  Making excuses as to why you won't discredits a traitors like you personally.
Click to expand...

In regard to violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, the only meaningful statistic is crimes/thousand and since there are no accurate figures as to the number of illegal immigrants in any given area, there are no reliable statistics.  Yes, we know how many illegal immigrants were arrested for violent crimes in a given city, but we don't know how many illegal immigrants are actually in that city.  Are there more crimes by illegal immigrants than whites, probably yes because they are a poor minority group.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question.  Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.
> 
> The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities.  Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
> Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
> Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times.  Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013.  We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year.  It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working.  Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you?    My what a wonderful American YOU are!    Where did you learn your code of ethics?
> 
> You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here.    And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here.   Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.
Click to expand...

So you think the majority of Americans want all illegal immigrants deported?  That's not what any of the major poll report.  In fact, they show that the vast majority of Americans oppose such action.

Most Americans need the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, so they want them deported?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Conservative65 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not what it means to me but what the intent was of it by those that wrote it.  They made it clear and the Supreme Court upheld in subsequent cases that it wasn't intended to be used as you bleeding hearts want to use it.  You don't have to believe me but if you go against the intent of those that wrote it , you go against history.
Click to expand...


That's ^^^ not an answer.  Who made it clear, post a link, please.  And, what cases support you position?


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
Click to expand...


The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.


----------



## Syriusly

Spare_change said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read it just fine-
> 
> *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"
> 
> Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
Click to expand...


The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.


----------



## protectionist

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Spare_change

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
Click to expand...


Surely, you jest ... English your second language???


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Section 1. 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."_
> 
> I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States.  The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this clause mean to you:  ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"?   Think it through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not what it means to me but what the intent was of it by those that wrote it.  They made it clear and the Supreme Court upheld in subsequent cases that it wasn't intended to be used as you bleeding hearts want to use it.  You don't have to believe me but if you go against the intent of those that wrote it , you go against history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ^^^ not an answer.  Who made it clear, post a link, please.  And, what cases support you position?
Click to expand...

Because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not an answer.  That's your problem.  You don't hear what you want so to you it's not an answer.  

Slaughterhouse Cases and Elks v. Wilkins.  The amendment didn't intend for the children of illegal criminal pieces of shit to be citizens traitor.


----------



## Conservative65

protectionist said:


> The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


It's a shame that the pro illegal crowd that claims they follow history refuse to read what those in the past say.  It doesn't fit their agenda.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree that *"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,"* are not supposed to be anchor babies?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
Click to expand...


And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here.    The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable.   Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.
> 
> Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here.   The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick.  But then you obviously want them here.
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you?    My what a wonderful American YOU are!    Where did you learn your code of ethics?
> 
> You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here.    And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here.   Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the majority of Americans want all illegal immigrants deported?  That's not what any of the major poll report.  In fact, they show that the vast majority of Americans oppose such action.
> 
> Most Americans need the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, so they want them deported?
Click to expand...


I have links to polls that prove otherwise and it all depends on how the questions are posed as to the results.  Law abiding Americans want illegal aliens deported for various reasons.   They violated our immigration laws, they are costing us billions of dollars in social costs,  they have taken jobs from Americans and reduced their wages, used fake or stolen ID's, tax evasion (felonies), overcrowded our schools, jails and hospitals due to uncontrolled, unplanned for population growth, are diluting our culture and language because most of them are from one ethnic group, increased crime, etc. Need I say more?  We have enough of our own home grown criminals to deal with.    We certainly don't need to add millions of illegal foreigners to the mix.

Most law abiding Americans are for self-deportations.    Much cheaper that way.   Remove all of the incentives for them to remain here.   How many times does that have to be repeated until the defenders of illegal aliens get it?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.
> 
> Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
Click to expand...


Yet he didn't mention them at all. 

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?


----------



## Conservative65

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.
> 
> The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans.  The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits.  Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property.  The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.
> 
> Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at.  Others have become leaders both nationally and locally.  Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins.   Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants.  Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals contribute something.  They give traitors like you a reason to exist.  I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore.  You are worse than the illegals.  It's no suprise they keep coming.  They know traitors like you will overlook what they do.  One problem with your list.  You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens.  If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need to list the failures.  The failures make big news and there're all over the media.  The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.
> 
> Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media.  One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa.  At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego.  The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager.  He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college.  He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.
> 
> I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are.  Deporting them  is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it.  So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.
> 
> We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you?    My what a wonderful American YOU are!    Where did you learn your code of ethics?
> 
> You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here.    And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here.   Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the majority of Americans want all illegal immigrants deported?  That's not what any of the major poll report.  In fact, they show that the vast majority of Americans oppose such action.
> 
> Most Americans need the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, so they want them deported?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have links to polls that prove otherwise and it all depends on how the questions are posed as to the results.  Law abiding Americans want illegal aliens deported for various reasons.   They violated our immigration laws, they are costing us billions of dollars in social costs,  they have taken jobs from Americans and reduced their wages, used fake or stolen ID's, tax evasion (felonies), overcrowded our schools, jails and hospitals due to uncontrolled, unplanned for population growth, are diluting our culture and language because most of them are from one ethnic group, increased crime, etc. Need I say more?  We have enough of our own home grown criminals to deal with.    We certainly don't need to add millions of illegal foreigners to the mix.
> 
> Most law abiding Americans are for self-deportations.    Much cheaper that way.   Remove all of the incentives for them to remain here.   How many times does that have to be repeated until the defenders of illegal aliens get it?
Click to expand...

 
I'm for he government doing its damn jobs and its job is to deport illegals.


BULLDOG said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:
> 
> _"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
> The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
> 
> Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
> 
> The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
> (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
> (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
> 
> In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 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 between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."_
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.
> 
> The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.
> 
> But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally.   In the Wong case the parents were legally here.
> 
> A regular American can't change or re-interpret law.    It is up to congress to do that.  A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that.    It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats).    Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now?   I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on.    Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.
> 
> Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.
> 
> IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now.    I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?    Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU  for instance!    Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have every right to whine, but everybody else has the right to tell you how childish it is. By all means whine away.
Click to expand...

 
You have every right to claim someone else is childish.  Doesn't make it true simply because you say it.  That's childish to think because it comes out of your big mouth it's truth.    By all means keep running your trap and we'll keep laughing at you.


----------



## Truth2Know

DGS49 said:


> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.


----------



## Truth2Know

DGS49 said:


> "Section 1.  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."
> 
> As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens.  And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents.  In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.  But I digress.
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).
> 
> The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless.  Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.
> 
> But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause.  Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie.  She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters.  Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen?  In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.
> 
> I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.


----------



## Truth2Know

Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.

We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
Click to expand...


Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?

After all, didn't they also have legal training?

Mark


----------



## BULLDOG

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your silly claim. Where is the link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
Click to expand...



I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing. 

The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'

Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law. 

Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.


----------



## Syriusly

Truth2Know said:


> Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.
> 
> We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.



Or we could respect the actual words of the 14th Amendment- and change it if you think it is incorrect.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment  which requires that we can't separate an illegal immigrant from her legal citizen child.  We can deport the mother, and if the mother chooses to bring her child with her, she can. If she doesn't, the child can be treated like any of the several hundred thousand abandoned American citizen children we have.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
Click to expand...

 
Dred Scott dealt specifically with black slaves.  The 14th Amendment was written with the intent of correcting Dred Scott as related to the now former black slaves not to give children who were born here due solely to a crime citizenship.  You can keep saying that's what it means but you would be wrong.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Truth2Know said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.
> 
> We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we could respect the actual words of the 14th Amendment- and change it if you think it is incorrect.
> 
> There is nothing in the 14th Amendment  which requires that we can't separate an illegal immigrant from her legal citizen child.  We can deport the mother, and if the mother chooses to bring her child with her, she can. If she doesn't, the child can be treated like any of the several hundred thousand abandoned American citizen children we have.
Click to expand...

 
We should respect the intent behind those words. 

I don't have a problem sending the illegal tramp back to her home country without her child.  Since the child she leaves isn't mine, it's not mine to support.  Let the child stay as long as taxpayers don't have to support it.


----------



## Truth2Know

I would like everyone to respect the actual intent. The "actual words" do not convey the intent when the "actual words"  have been distorted by some. Illegal aliens dumping babies to gain citizenship is an unintended consequence not envisioned in 1868.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
Click to expand...


Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

*Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of them are Supreme Court justices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.

And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.

If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


That may have been the author's intent but was that the intent of US Congress and the states that approved the amendment?  There is no way of knowing.  So we are left with what is in the constitution, *"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."  
*
Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the citizenship clause to the birth of children of illegal immigrants in the US, it would seems unlikely that they would narrow the scope of the clause.based on a claim of jurisdiction. 

 If it did happen, just think of the paperwork. Any or every birth could require research as to the citizenship status of its parents. Since many people are still in denial about the President’s birthplace, one can only imagine how complicated this could get in terms of DNA and document authentication.  At a minimum, anyone aspiring to high office would certainly need authenticity of a pure blood line.

*
*


----------



## Flopper

Truth2Know said:


> Here is the intent of the 14th amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> An "anchor baby" is like someone breaking into your house, birthing a child, and then forcing you to care for the child. Then, while you care for the child, the birth mother comes along and says you can't separate her from her child, so you must care for her, too. Plus the other "family" so attached to the new child.
> 
> We must wake up and quit quibbling over words. Do what's right, not what some lawyer try to say is right through their convoluted logic and abuse of the English language.


Those words in the constitution happen to be the basis for our laws.  They are worth quibbling about.


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything
Click to expand...


If you bothered to actually read what comes up on your computer, you would see that, in the very next post, I gave you a myriad of references. But, you continue to make my point ... your goal is to feed your  ego, rather than learn something. i think you need to look at your motivation ... are you here to learn, and to discuss, or are you here to try to give some meaning to your life, feed your ego, or bully people?


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
Click to expand...


We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may have been the author's intent but was that the intent of US Congress and the states that approved the amendment?  There is no way of knowing.  So we are left with what is in the constitution, *"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."
> *
> Although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the applicability of the citizenship clause to the birth of children of illegal immigrants in the US, it would seems unlikely that they would narrow the scope of the clause.based on a claim of jurisdiction.
> 
> If it did happen, just think of the paperwork. Any or every birth could require research as to the citizenship status of its parents. Since many people are still in denial about the President’s birthplace, one can only imagine how complicated this could get in terms of DNA and document authentication.  At a minimum, anyone aspiring to high office would certainly need authenticity of a pure blood line.
Click to expand...


Amazing ennit, that we can track every cow in America, and yet the paperwork suddenly becomes to much of a burden to prove citizenship?

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
Click to expand...


Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
Click to expand...


A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.

An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion and 2 bucks will get your  buck of coffee.
> 
> The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.


----------



## Oldglory1

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything
Click to expand...


Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
Click to expand...


Wrong, diplomats nor their families are exempt from our laws.   You are mixing apples and oranges here.    You are using only one example of  subject to our  jurisdiction by just mentioning our laws.  Illegal aliens are subject to our laws also but not subject to our full jurisdiction in regards to birthright citizenship for their kids.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
Click to expand...


The plain language is "AND" subject to our jurisdiction.     That is the qualifier.    If the children of illegal aliens were automatically subject to our jurisdiction when born there would have been no need for that qualifying word.


----------



## BULLDOG

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you bothered to actually read what comes up on your computer, you would see that, in the very next post, I gave you a myriad of references. But, you continue to make my point ... your goal is to feed your  ego, rather than learn something. i think you need to look at your motivation ... are you here to learn, and to discuss, or are you here to try to give some meaning to your life, feed your ego, or bully people?
Click to expand...



Forgive me for not knowing what you might be going to post at some later point. Is this a skill you are capable of?


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
Click to expand...


Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.

Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.

Mark


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldglory1 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.
Click to expand...



Oh My.....Another teabagger doesn't think I'm credible. What ever will I do?


----------



## Oldglory1

BULLDOG said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.
> 
> Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.
> 
> You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh My.....Another teabagger doesn't think I'm credible. What ever will I do?
Click to expand...


No such thing as a teabagger unless you are talking about a deragatory term applied to gays.


----------



## BULLDOG

Oldglory1 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the  ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....
> 
> and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you are confused. I asked for references to your claim that you couldn't or wouldn't provide. You made a special point about "winning". I'm not sure what this post of yours has to do with anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims that the tea party members collectively are crazy (and they aren't baggers) is not someone I would place any credibility on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh My.....Another teabagger doesn't think I'm credible. What ever will I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing as a teabagger unless you are talking about a deragatory term applied to gays.
Click to expand...



In that case, you should tell the tea party members who produced and distributed this video that they don't exist. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to them.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.
> 
> Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.

But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plain language is "AND" subject to our jurisdiction.     That is the qualifier.    If the children of illegal aliens were automatically subject to our jurisdiction when born there would have been no need for that qualifying word.
Click to expand...


LOL....yet they don't mention children of illegal aliens at all in the 14th Amendment.

"And subject to the jurisdiction" is there to differentiate between those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- i.e. everyone here except:
a) foreign diplomats
b) invading armies 
c) native americans living within their tribal lands

Still waiting for anyone to show how either illegal aliens or the children born to them are not within the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, diplomats nor their families are exempt from our laws.   You are mixing apples and oranges here.    You are using only one example of  subject to our  jurisdiction by just mentioning our laws.  Illegal aliens are subject to our laws also but not subject to our full jurisdiction in regards to birthright citizenship for their kids.
Click to expand...


'exempt'= not within jurisdiction. They are exempt because they are not within the jurisdiction.

Show me an example of how illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I have shown you how diplomats are not.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.
> 
> Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.
> 
> But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.
Click to expand...


Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.

Mark


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
Click to expand...

Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
*"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.


----------



## Jackinthebox

DGS49 said:


> . In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder.



That's the core element as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
Click to expand...


So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

*"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.*
*
IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.

*


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.
> 
> Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.
> 
> But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.
> 
> Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.
> 
> But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...


Your opinion only. I disagree.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.
> 
> Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.
> 
> But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion only. I disagree.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


My opinion and your opinion- we disagree- and nothing wrong with that.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why go thru the trouble? If its one thing this old conservative has learned from the left over the past 40 years or so, is that if you find the right judges, you can create any law you want to.
> 
> Besides, like I have stated before, the law is already clear as it is written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are- whining about the 14th Amendment- and how you don't agree with how it is being interpreted.
> 
> But you don't care enough to try to affect any change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I and others here have pointed out, there is nothing to change.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then stop whining. Because the clear language of the 14th Amendment is being enforced, and that isn't going to change without a Constitutional amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion only. I disagree.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion and your opinion- we disagree- and nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...


Nope. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Mark


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
Click to expand...

"Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*

Just to make it simple for you:
*All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.

The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
Click to expand...

The way Jacob Howard stated it.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
Click to expand...


Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, I am sure you agree that when the SCOTUS passed Dred Scott, that they were right then as well?
> 
> After all, didn't they also have legal training?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
Click to expand...

All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse 'right'- as in moral and correct- with 'actually count'ing.
> 
> The court in Dred Scott was morally wrong- but legally they clearly werent'
> 
> Which is the reason the Constitution was changed to correct the law.
> 
> Which is how you would go about 'fixing' the parts of the 14th Amendment you don't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.
Click to expand...


That works for sending illegal aliens back, but they are whining about so called anchor babies- i.e. American citizens.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.
> 
> *Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
> 
> Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
Click to expand...


So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

*"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.*
*
IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
Click to expand...


Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens and foreigners were mentioned.     That's all you need to know.  It defies logic that a diplomat who owes allegiance to another country can't give birth to a U..S. citizen but an illegal alien who also owes allegiance to another country can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
Click to expand...

What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
_*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
*_
*The amendment actually reads, "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."
*
Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
*
*


----------



## Spare_change

I say let’s send them all to France
This flood of new Obamagrants
Today, he calls for fresh migration
To build a new Obamanation
Had I the standing, I’d be suing
Poor man, he knows not what he’s doing
To those who think that I’m not fair.
May I present…Obamacare

- - Tarzana Joe


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.
> 
> *Among constitutional scholars, Scott v. Sandford is widely considered the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court. It has been cited in particular as the most egregious example in the court’s history of wrongly imposing a judicial solution on a political problem. A later **chief justice**, **Charles Evans Hughes**, famously characterized the decision as the court’s great “self-inflicted wound.”*
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That works for sending illegal aliens back, but they are whining about so called anchor babies- i.e. American citizens.
Click to expand...

It works for anchors babies too.  They also are illegal aliens.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.
> 
> Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
Click to expand...

So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> A diplomat in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- we cannot arrest, or jail anyone who is considered a diplomat- and that includes their family.
> 
> An illegal alien is absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as long as he or she is in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
Click to expand...

*FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
  For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$


----------



## Synthaholic

*DEPORT HER!!!!*


----------



## protectionist

Synthaholic said:


> *DEPORT HER!!!!*



No way. MM is great, from her great book "Invasion" written in 2002, right up to the present day.


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> *DEPORT HER!!!!*




Why?


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
Click to expand...


No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment. 

Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer it. 

Here let me ask the question again

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

*"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence is very clear.
> 
> The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
Click to expand...


Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap. 

I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.

I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately yes they were legally right. Any decision reached by the Supreme Court becomes legally correct- and can only be changed by a subsequent Supreme Court decision or changing the law.
> 
> And of course that is how the very bad decision in Dred Scott was fixed.
> 
> If you think that the 14th Amendment is wrong, then that is how you can fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That works for sending illegal aliens back, but they are whining about so called anchor babies- i.e. American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It works for anchors babies too.  They also are illegal aliens.
Click to expand...


American citizens are not illegal aliens.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...

Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
_"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer it.
> 
> Here let me ask the question again
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*
Click to expand...

You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending.  You can do that.  No law against it.,   But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree. A court can fix it without revision. All it has to do s interpret it the way it was written.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh certainly you can wish upon a star that a court will agree with your interpretation instead of the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> But if you actually want to fix what you considered broken- then you need to do what the opponents of the Dred Scott decision did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That works for sending illegal aliens back, but they are whining about so called anchor babies- i.e. American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It works for anchors babies too.  They also are illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American citizens are not illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they were.  They said anchor babies (who are illegal aliens) are not American citizens.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.
> 
> I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.
> 
> I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment.  You are in DENIAL.


----------



## barryqwalsh

USA Baby Care, which has a hotel in Anaheim — near Disneyland, south of Los Angeles — offers lodging and prenatal care for expectant mothers but provides other reasons to convince Asian women to give birth in the U.S.

“In the case of political instability or unrest, U.S. citizens enjoy the protection of the U.S. government,” the service says on a Chinese-language website that has a picture of a baby next to the Statue of Liberty and the U.S. Capitol. “Even if there is an airspace shutdown, they enjoy priority to get on a plane to leave.”

The service has prices ranging from $14,000 to $22,000.


Giving birth in U.S. to get babies citizenship draws suspicion The Japan Times


----------



## barryqwalsh

Center Introduction month

US satisfied with the baby a month center professional, high quality, efficient and maternal and child care institutions, founded in 2003, is the founder of Ms. Neva license nurse with extensive experience in maternal and child care, for the majority of mothers and mothers to provide prenatal and postnatal maternal and child care guidance, and commissioning work to do mental and emotional for moms. Founded 10 years ago, our long the "customer first, good faith," the purpose of the United States to make every effort to provide our children customer service. We have a strong team of medical nurses, immigration consultant team and logistics team, make every effort to enable customers to "save money, save time, worry, and effort." In addition to providing you with professional maternal and child care services, we can provide customers with Immigration, US buyers, green card application, as well as free public school services.Our month of Evergreen Hotel New center for eight years throughout a 6-storey building is the hall, the second floor is the kitchen, restaurant, hotel safe environment alone, eight Chengdu his pregnant mother who lived and Peiqia few foreign guests Corridor, parking lots, public areas equipped with 30 perturbation of the head, 24-hour security patrols with police connections, the center is a commercial tourist area can live any tourists, not just to the police interrogation, the lobby desk 24 hours Service personnel must swipe out the door, safe and Lu. The center specially hired nurse Taiwan experienced professional license, 24 hours in the hotel safe guard your health, personally trained many medals nanny good care of your baby.


----------



## barryqwalsh

Your baby is born that is a US citizen, can enjoy first-class citizens .. Read More .....

usababycare.com/about.html


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
Click to expand...


How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for. 

For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here. 

So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of? 

Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not. 

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.
> 
> I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.
> 
> I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment.  You are in DENIAL.
Click to expand...


Like I said- doesnt' matter what you imagine what his intention was- the law always starts with the language of the law- you just don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- i.e. you don't like the language of the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer it.
> 
> Here let me ask the question again
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending.  You can do that.  No law against it.,   But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.
Click to expand...


LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing. 

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

*"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example. *


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer it.
> 
> Here let me ask the question again
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending.  You can do that.  No law against it.,   But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment
> 
> And you can't give an example. *
Click to expand...


Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.


----------



## Oldglory1

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he didn't mention them at all.
> 
> Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States  are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.
> 
> I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.
> 
> I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment.  You are in DENIAL.
Click to expand...


Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered..  He's starting to sound like a parrot.    All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either.    What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction?    As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our  jurisdiction in every way.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer it.
> 
> Here let me ask the question again
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending.  You can do that.  No law against it.,   But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment
> 
> And you can't give an example. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
Click to expand...


LOL- is that all you have- since you have admitted defeat by failing to provide a single example of how an illegal alien is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?

So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

*"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.

IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example.*
*
Not one.*


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.
> 
> I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.
> 
> I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment.  You are in DENIAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered..  He's starting to sound like a parrot.    All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either.    What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction?    As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our  jurisdiction in every way.
Click to expand...


*All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws*

*"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"*
*
Thank you for finally admitting that all children born in the United States are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- and therefore per the plain language of the 14th Amendment are born citizens.
*


----------



## 80zephyr

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
Click to expand...


What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> 
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
Click to expand...


What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:

*"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the 
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested 
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out 
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in 
which it was passed." 
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The 
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*

You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want. 

*Mark*


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
Click to expand...


I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.

Again the plain language:

*"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."*
*
That is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. 

Otherwise- the language is very clear. *


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.


----------



## barryqwalsh

Syriusly said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
Click to expand...

So a baby born to a tourist on vacation in the US should automatically get American citizenship?

This is a crazy and unsustainable. It was not the intention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

If a political party campaigned on this issue, it would win massive support.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
Click to expand...


When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.

In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.

But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.
Click to expand...


Because they never envisioned a welfare state.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> 
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they never envisioned a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...



They never envisioned women voting either.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else. 


*"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."

That is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear*


----------



## Syriusly

barryqwalsh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a baby born to a tourist on vacation in the US should automatically get American citizenship?
> 
> This is a crazy and unsustainable. It was not the intention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> If a political party campaigned on this issue, it would win massive support.
Click to expand...


Baby's born to tourists here have been getting American citizenship for years. 

Where have you been?

If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- change it.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they never envisioned a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They never envisioned women voting either.
Click to expand...


And? That was because they understood the writers intent.  As we should as well.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
Click to expand...


Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.

Mark


----------



## Synthaholic

Unkotare said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DEPORT HER!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

She's an anchor baby.


----------



## barryqwalsh

Syriusly said:


> barryqwalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourtee
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.
> 
> There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , *and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:
> 
> 
> _ 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*.
> 
> _
> *So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?*
> _
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a baby born to a tourist on vacation in the US should automatically get American citizenship?
> 
> This is a crazy and unsustainable. It was not the intention of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> If a political party campaigned on this issue, it would win massive support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baby's born to tourists here have been getting American citizenship for years.
> 
> Where have you been?
> 
> If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- change it.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm aware of that. My point is, it's totally crazy!


----------



## Unkotare

Synthaholic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DEPORT HER!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's an anchor baby.
Click to expand...



I'd take one of her to ten of you.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we've screwed up pretty bad because tens of thousands of them are serving time in state and federal peregrinates.  We've even executed some of them and deported over 360,000 in 2013.
> 
> In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
> *"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." *I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
Click to expand...


You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners."   How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption?  There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement.  Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers.  Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written,* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....". 
*
The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender.  To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws.   Yet you stretch that to mean that their kids should get birthright citizenship based on that.  Yes, read what you quoted again.  It is clear that "AND" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier.  In most cases foreigners here are not subject to our full jurisdiction a separate thing from not being exempt from our laws.    Their allegiance and citizenship is with another country so their kids born on our soil are also.
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners."   How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption?  There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement.  Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers.  Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written,* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".
> *
> The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender.  To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.
Click to expand...


Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, 


*


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they never envisioned a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They never envisioned women voting either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? That was because they understood the writers intent.  As we should as well.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.

So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.

Don't like the Constitution- change it.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners."   How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption?  There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement.  Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers.  Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written,* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".
> *
> The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender.  To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States,
> 
> *
Click to expand...


That 'clause' is not in the 14th Amendment. 

* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....". *
*
As pointed out by the previous poster- children born to foreigners were considered citizens- but not children who were 'foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors'*


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they never dreamt was that the US would become a welfare state, and spend billions on immigrants. We can be quite sure as to what their intent would have been in that case.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they never envisioned a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They never envisioned women voting either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? That was because they understood the writers intent.  As we should as well.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.
> 
> So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.
> 
> Don't like the Constitution- change it.
Click to expand...


The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...


And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- considering that there were no illegal immigrants at the time and people could come freely into the United States, I think they would be surprised at the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they never envisioned a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They never envisioned women voting either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? That was because they understood the writers intent.  As we should as well.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.
> 
> So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.
> 
> Don't like the Constitution- change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...




80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they never envisioned a welfare state.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never envisioned women voting either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? That was because they understood the writers intent.  As we should as well.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.
> 
> So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.
> 
> Don't like the Constitution- change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm simply using a liberal tactic to get the results I want. I have to say, they are good teachers.

Mark


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Again, no foreigner here is exempt from our laws." - *Wrong. Foreigners with diplomatic immunity are exempt from our laws. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.*
> 
> Just to make it simple for you:
> *All persons born* *in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof *(which includes everyone born in the US that does not have diplomatic immunity)*, are citizens of the United States.* It doesn't matter whether their parents are illegal aliens, terrorists, or descendants of the pilgrims, they are US citizens.  The 14th amendment enshrines one the most noble American beliefs.
> 
> The amendment is clear and there is just no way of interpreting it to read that children born in the US of illegal immigrants are not US citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners."   How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption?  There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement.  Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers.  Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written,* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".
> *
> The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender.  To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, *
Click to expand...


That statement is attributed to Howard, the author of the amendment.  It is not in the 14th amendment.  In fact, the only criteria for citizenship in the amendment is in the first sentence of the amendment, "*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."*   The only excursion that congress made was for those not under the jurisdiction of the United States, ambassadors, foreign minsters, and their families.  The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.  * 

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute*


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.  

A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
Click to expand...


A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> 
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners."   How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption?  There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement.  Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers.  Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written,* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".
> *
> The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender.  To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is attributed to Howard, the author of the amendment.  It is not in the 14th amendment.  In fact, the only criteria for citizenship in the amendment is in the first sentence of the amendment, "*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."*   The only excursion that congress made was for those not under the jurisdiction of the United States, ambassadors, foreign minsters, and their families.  The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.  *
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute*
Click to expand...


They were excluded by the wording in the 14th.   You just refuse to see it.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...


Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.


----------



## barryqwalsh

*Born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986*
*General*
People born in Australia (including Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island) on or after 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

Passport Manual - Publications - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
Click to expand...


Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They never envisioned women voting either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? That was because they understood the writers intent.  As we should as well.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they understood the writers intent- which was never to treat women as legally equal to men.
> 
> So they changed the Constitution so women had the vote.
> 
> Don't like the Constitution- change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution has been interpreted differently by different courts. My hope is that a future court gets it right.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm simply using a liberal tactic to get the results I want. I have to say, they are good teachers.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


So you are using tactics you admire- or using tactics you disapprove of?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way Jacob Howard stated it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.
> 
> I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.
> 
> I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment.  You are in DENIAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered..  He's starting to sound like a parrot.    All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either.    What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction?    As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our  jurisdiction in every way.
Click to expand...


How are they not subject to our full jurisdiction?

Simple question- and if you can't answer it- then you can't answer why they are not subject to the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    ...




The law is clear as it is, oldgloryhole. YOU will not "test" anything. YOU will just sit there scratching yourself and whining on the internet.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
Click to expand...

You really should do a little research before you start writing.
_*
United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.


----------



## Flopper

barryqwalsh said:


> *Born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986*
> *General*
> People born in Australia (including Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island) on or after 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.
> 
> Passport Manual - Publications - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade


Thus the citizenship of anyone born in Australia after that date could be challenged based on linage, similar to the race determination rules in old South.


----------



## barryqwalsh

No, it is not about race. A child born in Australia is not automatically an Australian citizens unless at least one of his/her parents is an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

This is perfectly reasonable policy. Pregnant women can't arrive, give birth and their child acquiring  Australian citizenship 
automatically.


----------



## barryqwalsh

It is the same in most of the world,  birth in a country ddoesn't automatically give you citizenship of that county.


----------



## barryqwalsh

"Being born in the UK doesn’t automatically give you British citizenship."


British passport eligibility - GOV.UK


----------



## barryqwalsh

Changes to Citizenship by Birth in New Zealand 


http://www.dia.govt.nz/Services-Cit...-Zealand-from-2006-Frequently-Asked-Questions


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...


Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.


----------



## Herodotus

> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.



You are making a common mistake of laypersons.  The Court did not need to discuss illegal aliens in order to define what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.   It did define such phase comprehensibly and such definition was the necessary for the disposition of the case and hence is considered part of the holding of the case.  Hence, such definition is binding precedent unless and until the Court revisits the issue and, accordingly, it has been followed for the past century (even being approved of in later dicta of the Court relating to illegal aliens).   The Court said such phrase was meant to adopt the English common law rule and hence to only exclude persons subject to the privilege of extraterritoriality (i.e., children of Ambassadors and invading armies).  One simply cannot exclude illegal aliens under this definition.   Perhaps the Court will make a distinction with respect to illegals in the future, but it would be difficult based upon the clear language of the Amendment.   

It is worth noting that many of the slaves the Amendment was intended to apply to were children of slaves brought here illegally as importing slaves had been illegal for more than a half century, but they continued to be smuggled into the country.  No one suggested the legal status of the parents was relevant.  Only birth on the soil mattered.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
Click to expand...


Nor did I say that Wong Kim Ark discussed children born of illegal aliens- I said Wong Kim Ark discussed aliens, foreigners

Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.

If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.

*Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.*
*
And you still can't answer that question.

So its not that you disagree with how the 14th Amendment is being interpreted- you just disagree with the language of the 14th Amendment. *


----------



## Syriusly

barryqwalsh said:


> It is the same in most of the world,  birth in a country ddoesn't automatically give you citizenship of that county.



Well you best get busy if you want to change the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

THE only persons born in the United States who are not born U.S. citizens are those born in the United States but not within the jurisidiction of the United States.

I have been asking for days now- give us an example how the child born in the United States born to illegal aliens- is not within the jurisidiction of the United States.

If you can't answer that simple question, you either are lying about the 14th Amendment, or just can't read it.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
Click to expand...

In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*

*The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
*
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
Click to expand...

In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."[/QUOTE"
> 
> Diplomats are required to obey our laws while on our soil  also but their kids born on our soil do not attain birthright citizenship for the same reason that illegal aliens don't according  to the 14th.     Keep grasping at straws.   It's fun to watch.
Click to expand...


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
Click to expand...


Again, everyone on our soil is required to obey our laws including diplomats and their families who don't get birthright citizenship.   So why do you keep using this lame argument?


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Again,  Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, everyone on our soil is required to obey our laws including diplomats and their families who don't get birthright citizenship.   So why do you keep using this lame argument?
Click to expand...


Diplomats who are given full immunity are not subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States. The Ambassador of Canada could murder someone on the streets of New York and he would not be subject to criminal prosecution in the United States unless Canada removed diplomatic immunity.

Virtually everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you disagree- feel free to show us anyone other than diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

(1) *Report to Congress*
The Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the Congress, annually, a report concerning diplomatic immunity entitled “Report on Cases Involving Diplomatic Immunity”.
(2) *Content of report*
In addition to such other information as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) The number of persons residing in the United States who enjoy full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the United States under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?
Click to expand...


Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
Click to expand...


Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.

Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> THE only persons born in the United States who are not born U.S. citizens are those born in the United States but not within the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> I have been asking for days now- give us an example how the child born in the United States born to illegal aliens- is not within the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> If you can't answer that simple question, you either are lying about the 14th Amendment, or just can't read it.



And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country.   Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands.  They aren't even legal residents.  Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil.   You are mixing apples with oranges here.     Polly wanna cracker?  Squawk, squawk.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


NO, that isn't what the arguments were about.    The parents were in this country legally.   So yes the claim is lame.    I don't need to change anything... I don't have that kind of power only my voice which is what I am using with my congressman.. Congress needs to bring it to committee and on to the Supreme Court.  Why do you  "personally" want children of illegal aliens to gain citizenship in our country when it is causing us a fiscal burden and making a mockery out of our citizenship?    Come on,  at least have the guts to admit what your agenda is.    Surely your not opposed to future  amendments to our Constitution (not that it would be necessary in this case).   Afterall it is the American way as an avid Constitutional scholar and protector of it that you claim to be, right:?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
Click to expand...


Wrong!   You left out this little fact.
The few times diplomats have broken our laws, evidence has been  handed over and the diplomat is repatriated to stand trail. Or in some cases, the given nation retracts diplomatic status to let the country prosecute the (now former) diplomat to the full extent of their own laws (this has also been done a few times when repatriation was impossible because the former diplomat had gone into hiding).


.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> So why do you keep using this lame argument?



Why are you so incapable of understanding what the hell you are trying to talk about, oldgloryhole?


----------



## Flopper

barryqwalsh said:


> It is the same in most of the world,  birth in a country ddoesn't automatically give you citizenship of that county.


That's true.  Almost all of Europe and Asia countries do not have birthright citizenship. Jus sanguinis or right of blood dates back thousands of years. Citizenship has been determined by bloods line for centuries. This is how citizenship was determined in essentially all the civilized nations with exception of England. 

Early Americans simply rejected the idea that one's place in society should be determined by one's linage.  So it's not surprising that Americans would accept birthright citizenship.  In Europe and Asia where lineage is more import than America, birthright citizenship never caught on.  In the new world,  Birthright citizenship spread throughout the Americas.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!   You left out this little fact.
> The few times diplomats have broken our laws, evidence has been  handed over and the diplomat is repatriated to stand trail. Or in some cases, the given nation retracts diplomatic status to let the country prosecute the (now former) diplomat to the full extent of their own laws (this has also been done a few times when repatriation was impossible because the former diplomat had gone into hiding).
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yes, more of less.  Diplomatic immunity is not what most people think it is.  First off, the immunity is not just for diplomats. All employees of foreign governments who are present in the United States as official representatives of their home governments as well as their families are covered by diplomatic immunity. 

There are about 100,000 people now covered by diplomatic immunity.  Some of these persons are members of diplomatic missions, others are assigned to consular posts, and still others are employees of international organizations or members of national missions to such international organizations. For each of these categories of persons, particular rules apply and, even within these categories, different levels of immunity may be accorded to different classes of persons.  For example diplomatic agents have compete immunity.  They can be expelled from the US but they cannot be arrested nor forced to give testimony.  Other categories of persons only have immunity as it applies to their official representation of their government.  Service personnel can be arrested and charged with crimes but they can't be force to give testimony.

On TV, the criminal just cries diplomatic immunity and he escapes justice but that's TV, not the real world. Low level persons can be arrested and charged with crimes.  Those with compete immunity may be expelled, however the embarrassment to his country usually brings on stiff penalties, sometimes worst than what might have been levied within the US.


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, everyone on our soil is required to obey our laws including diplomats and their families who don't get birthright citizenship.   So why do you keep using this lame argument?
Click to expand...

Because diplomatic agents are only expected to obey our laws but they can't be required to do so because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to pretend that I didn't answer your question.  That's not very helpful in winning debates.  Right now, you're losing this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer it.
> 
> Here let me ask the question again
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending.  You can do that.  No law against it.,   But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment
> 
> And you can't give an example. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- is that all you have- since you have admitted defeat by failing to provide a single example of how an illegal alien is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment
> 
> And you can't give an example.
> 
> Not one.*
Click to expand...


You keep repeating.  That's HARASSMENT.  I'm reporting you.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't come up with any stretch of your imagination on how illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdictiion of the United States either.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over?   Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining?    I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of  the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship.   Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it.   Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. .  Never mind, I no longer give a damn!    Done with your crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.
> 
> I have said before- you don't like the 14th Amendment then change it.  The Amendment process is there for that purpose.
> 
> I however, defend the Constitution from those who would try to twist the clear language of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jacob Howard made it perfectly clear what he was writing when he wrote the amendment.  You are in DENIAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he is denial and he keeps asking the same old question over and over that has already been answered..  He's starting to sound like a parrot.    All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws aka justice but that in no way means that their kids born on our soil are citizens of this country because the parents were not under our FULL jurisdiction and their newborns aren't either.    What part of that aren't they getting about the qualifying word of "AND" subject to our jurisdiction?    As I said, there would be no need for that qualifying word if they were automatically subject to our  jurisdiction in every way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *All foreigners here on our soil are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws*
> 
> *"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"
> 
> Thank you for finally admitting that all children born in the United States are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- and therefore per the plain language of the 14th Amendment are born citizens.*
Click to expand...

You've been REPORTED,  Mr. Troll.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is .  It is in Post # 132.     Can't you read ?
> 
> 
> 
> What the author of the legislation intended is only relevant if there is any ambiguity in the legislation.  In the case of the citizenship clause there is absolutely none.
> 
> Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
> _*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."
> *_
> *The amendment actually reads, "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."
> *
> Howard's intent  is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment.  It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant, and it is the core of the amendment.  At the time the amendment was written, it was so assumed (note the words >_ "of course")_ that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners, that it seen as simply understood, and not needed to be writtten in the amendment. It was felt that it was there just by assumption. If everything possible were to be put in every amendment, the Constitution would be trillions of pages long.
> For the first amendment, regarding free speech, some things were not included in the amendment, which the amendment should, and does, include.  These exceptions to the 1st amendment are now law in the USA, while still not being in the 1st amendment (ex. perjury, slander, libel, sedition, threats, fighting words, obscenity laws, etc)
> What Congress intended, IS what Howard intended.  It's just that, at the time, looking from foresight, nobody even dreamed of the ludicrous situation we have today where malicious, rogue countries (Mexico, China, India) use the absence of full specifics in the Constitution, (together with shameful Democrat et al political support) to invade the US and pillage it, as in the current 21st century style of imperialism they employ now, by way of remittances$$$$$$ and human services payouts$$$$$$
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying, "it was assumed that citizenship would not extend to kids who belong to foreigners."   How could that possible be a commonly accepted assumption?  There were many thousands of children born to foreign parents in the US in the first half of the 18th century. Some were born during the 5 year residency requirement.  Others were born to foreign parents who immigrated but never filed citizenship papers.  Congress certainly would not have excluded their children from citizenship and written,* "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....".
> *
> The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and under US jurisdiction regardless of race, class, or gender.  To claim Congress's intent was to exclude some children and include other is just not illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, they clearly did exclude with this clause......*will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is attributed to Howard, the author of the amendment.  It is not in the 14th amendment.  In fact, the only criteria for citizenship in the amendment is in the first sentence of the amendment, "*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."*   The only excursion that congress made was for those not under the jurisdiction of the United States, ambassadors, foreign minsters, and their families.  The 14th Amendment was debated for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. If they had meant to exclude any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so.  *
> 
> 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute*
Click to expand...


"excursion" ?  When you learn how to speak English, maybe I'll debate you.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE! * Howard's intent is 100% relevant$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
Click to expand...

I already refuted all of this nonsense in previous posts.  You're a phony.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
Click to expand...


*TROLL.  PHONY.*


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
Click to expand...

There is nothing for them to strike down.  There is no such thing as birthright citizenship.  It has never existed, except as a lie pushed by politicians.  If a president deported anchor babies, he could not be challenged legally.  There is nothing to challenge him with.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
Click to expand...

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States – citizens cannot be 'deported.'


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
Click to expand...


Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing for them to strike down.  There is no such thing as birthright citizenship.  It has never existed, except as a lie pushed by politicians.  If a president deported anchor babies, he could not be challenged legally.  There is nothing to challenge him with.
Click to expand...


Persons born in the United States have been considered citizens since at the least Wong Kim Ark- regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Those citizens have been given passports, have voted, have been drafted, and are treated exactly like any other American citizen.

Wong Kim Ark confirmed what has been the truth in the United States since its founding- that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen- the 14th Amendment really just overturned the Dred Scott decision. 

If a President attempted to deport American citizens, he would of course be challenged- not by anyone on the right- because the issue of illegal aliens is an important issue to inflame their base- but by persons who cared about the Constitutional rights of Americans.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I was in village politics, we had a municipal lawyer. When we had a question as to what a law that we had  to contend with stated, he would ask "what do you want it to say", to see if he could squeeze our wants out of the statute.
> 
> In todays "law", a statute can say damn near anything you want it to say. Just like when the left says that the 2nd allows only militias to have guns. Any person who actually believes that these new citizens that just fought for their freedom would willingly give up their guns to a new government is delusional.
> 
> But, it never stops the left from trying, does it?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *TROLL.  PHONY.*
Click to expand...


So you can't address the issue at all- face it- you just hate that the Constitution protects Americans. That other than the right to possess firearms and the right to be a Christian you would just eliminate the Bill of Rights

Basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.


*"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."

That is very inclusive.

If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.

But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.

If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.

Otherwise- the language is very clear*


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- sorry- your interpretation of Howard's intent- and the intent of everyone who approved of the Amendment, and the intent of the State's that approved the Amendment are immaterial when it comes to the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Howard could have intended to mean all persons except Chinese- but the clear language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear it applies to everyone- except those who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Show me a so-called 'anchor baby' who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and we will have found someone who is not a citizen- but we already knew that children of diplomats don't become U.S. citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Every anchor baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by virtue of being an illegal alien, just like their parents.  The 14th amendment didn't have to say everything it could say.  Does a law against arson say barbeques allowed ?  I already gave the example of free speech.  You are deliberately avoiding the truth, and pretending the 14th amendment is somehow different.  Nobody here is falling for your ruse.
> _"Sorry",_ but you've already lost this debate, whether you pretend not to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are they not subject to the jurisdiction? Just one example is all I am asking for.
> 
> For example- I am subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- if I drive 100 miles an hour down the freeway, I can be pulled over and cited or arrested. IF I illegally import Cuban cigars, I can be arrested for selling Cuban cigars here.
> 
> So what laws are illegal aliens not under the jurisdiction of?
> 
> Since you are convinced that they are not subject to the jurisdiction you should be able to provide some examples of how they are not.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear- everyone born here is a citizen- IF they are born subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> The only example I can think of are children of diplomats- they are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> Stop telling us what you want the 14th Amendment to say- and tell us exactly how it doesn't apply to all children born in the United States- except children of diplomats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are doing here is something that Jefferson warned would happen:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> You don't care  about what the author meant. You only care that you can twist their words to get the results you want.
> 
> *Mark*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think that if the author meant to exclude foreigners from the the clear language of the 14th Amendment- he would have used different language.
> 
> Again the plain language:
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already refuted all of this nonsense in previous posts.  You're a phony.
Click to expand...


Talking to yourself is not refutation. 

So where is an example of a person born in the United States, other than children of diplomats- who is not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer it.
> 
> Here let me ask the question again
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment*
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to ask again. I answered it (twice now), and you know it, and you are just pretending.  You can do that.  No law against it.,   But it does make you look pretty stupid in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....if you have to state that a poster looks stupid to other people its just another sign of you losing.
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment
> 
> And you can't give an example. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- is that all you have- since you have admitted defeat by failing to provide a single example of how an illegal alien is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> So once again- how is any foreigner- other than those covered by diplomatic immunity- not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> *"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.
> 
> IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment
> 
> And you can't give an example.
> 
> Not one.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating.  That's HARASSMENT.  I'm reporting you.
Click to expand...


What a whiny weeny.

Harassment? I keep asking you for an honest answer- if demanding honesty is 'harrassment' when then I am guilty as charged

*IF you can't give even one example of how these people are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then essentially you have no objection other than you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment

And you can't give an example.

Not one*


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong!   You left out this little fact.
> The few times diplomats have broken our laws, evidence has been  handed over and the diplomat is repatriated to stand trail. Or in some cases, the given nation retracts diplomatic status to let the country prosecute the (now former) diplomat to the full extent of their own laws (this has also been done a few times when repatriation was impossible because the former diplomat had gone into hiding).
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't leave out any 'fact'- a term which you are rather loose in your usage of.

Another poster has gone into details as to the various forms of diplomatic immunity, but presuming that the driver I mentioned had full diplomatic status, he would be given a ride back to his consulate.

And as I pointed out in an earlier post- the most the United States could do to him is expel him.

IF the diplomat's country chose to prosecute him that would put him in his home countries jurisdiction. If they waived diplomatic immunity- then after they do so he becomes in the jurisidiction of the United States- any child born to him after that would be subject to the jurisidiction of the United STates.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=ilj
Diplomatic immunity, in the modern sense, can be broadly
defined as the freedom from local jurisdiction accorded the duly
certified diplomatic representatives of the sending state by the
receiving state under principles of international law. 14 The modern
law of diplomatic immunity is derived from centuries of practical
dealings among nations. 5 The United States has long recognized
the responsibilities imposed upon individual nations by force of international
custom, and treats the law of nations as the law of the
land. 16
The


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE only persons born in the United States who are not born U.S. citizens are those born in the United States but not within the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> I have been asking for days now- give us an example how the child born in the United States born to illegal aliens- is not within the jurisidiction of the United States.
> 
> If you can't answer that simple question, you either are lying about the 14th Amendment, or just can't read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country.   Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands.  They aren't even legal residents.  Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil.   You are mixing apples with oranges here.     Polly wanna cracker?  Squawk, squawk.
Click to expand...


You repeating your claim is not refutation. Persons born in the United States often have dual citizenship- that does not change jurisdiction.

Remember the 14th Amendment is very clear- every persons born in the United States is a U.S. citizen- except those who are born here, but not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

You just don't agree with the 14th Amendment- you can't actually say how these children are not subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- you just really, really, really, don't want them to be citizens.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, that isn't what the arguments were about.    The parents were in this country legally.   So yes the claim is lame.    I don't need to change anything... I don't have that kind of power only my voice which is what I am using with my congressman.. Congress needs to bring it to committee and on to the Supreme Court.  Why do you  "personally" want children of illegal aliens to gain citizenship in our country when it is causing us a fiscal burden and making a mockery out of our citizenship?    Come on,  at least have the guts to admit what your agenda is.    Surely your not opposed to future  amendments to our Constitution (not that it would be necessary in this case).   Afterall it is the American way as an avid Constitutional scholar and protector of it that you claim to be, right:?
Click to expand...


Why do you want to ignore the plain language of the 1rth Amendment?

I object to people like yourself deciding that just because you think the law is wrong, that it can be interpreted differently than what the language says.

The only objection I have to changing the Constitution to change the 14th Amendment provisions to something along the lines to of 'born to citizens or legal residents of the United States is that would make government more intrusive- because in order to prove citizenship every single one of us applying for an initial passport would not only need to provide prove of place of birth, but also provide proof of the citizenship and residency of your parents at the time you were born.


----------



## Flopper

In today's polarized environment passing a new constitutional amendment to the change the 14th amendment would be virtually impossible. The possibility that the Supreme Court would interpret the citizenship clause to mean that children born of illegal parent(s) are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and thus not citizens seems remote.  However, suppose the court did make such a ruling.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship because the birth certificate does no include citizenship information.  Since birth certificates don't include citizenship information, how would a person prove their citizenship?


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States
Click to expand...


Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing for them to strike down.  There is no such thing as birthright citizenship.  It has never existed, except as a lie pushed by politicians.  If a president deported anchor babies, he could not be challenged legally.  There is nothing to challenge him with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Persons born in the United States have been considered citizens since at the least Wong Kim Ark- regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
> 
> Those citizens have been given passports, have voted, have been drafted, and are treated exactly like any other American citizen.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark confirmed what has been the truth in the United States since its founding- that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen- the 14th Amendment really just overturned the Dred Scott decision.
> 
> If a President attempted to deport American citizens, he would of course be challenged- not by anyone on the right- because the issue of illegal aliens is an important issue to inflame their base- but by persons who cared about the Constitutional rights of Americans.
Click to expand...

They can challenge until they're blue in the face.  There has never been any such thing as birthright citizenship, and the next president and SCOTUS will set it straight.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is unsurprisingly ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States – citizens cannot be 'deported.'
Click to expand...

Citizens can't be.  But anchor babies are NOT citizens,  They are illegal aliens , same as their parents.

 The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

No, the 14the amendment doesn't need to be changed.  It has ALWAYS been that ALL foreigners are not US citizens, including their kids.  Even it this wasn't true, legislation is enough to remedy things, not a change to an amendment.  It says that right in the Constitution itself. Try reading it.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically- you just are upset about what the 14th Amendment says- and want to pretend it says something else.
> 
> 
> *"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."
> 
> That is very inclusive.
> 
> If you want to show who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and why- you might have a case.
> 
> But so far all I have heard is that you folks don't want the actual language of the 14th Amendment to be followed.
> 
> If you don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it.
> 
> Otherwise- the language is very clear*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
Click to expand...

*The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.


----------



## Jackinthebox

protectionist said:


> It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.



Because Reagan and the Bush clan did SOOOO much to stamp out illegals.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
Click to expand...


They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
Click to expand...


So you can't demonstrate how someone other than a diplomat is not subject to jurisdiction of the United States either.

So are you just admitting that you hate the language of the 14th Amendment- or just that you want everyone to ignore it?


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  Wong Kim Ark wasn't about illegal aliens parents giving birth on our soil so why do you persist with your lame arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his 'lame' arguments are the arguments of Wong Kim Ark- which unfortunately for you- describes jurisdiction- and is the reason why if you don't want 'anchor babies' you need to change the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the 14the amendment doesn't need to be changed.  It has ALWAYS been that ALL foreigners are not US citizens, including their kids.  Even it this wasn't true, legislation is enough to remedy things, not a change to an amendment.  It says that right in the Constitution itself. Try reading it.
Click to expand...


The 14th Amendment doesn't need to change. But if you don't want the children of illegal aliens who are born in the United States then your only path is to change 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 of the state wherein they reside_

Legislation can't change the Constitution. 

All you have to do to prove me wrong is to demonstrate how the children of illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

IF you are unable to do that- then you are either lying or in denial.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Hopefully a future court will undo this error.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing for them to strike down.  There is no such thing as birthright citizenship.  It has never existed, except as a lie pushed by politicians.  If a president deported anchor babies, he could not be challenged legally.  There is nothing to challenge him with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Persons born in the United States have been considered citizens since at the least Wong Kim Ark- regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
> 
> Those citizens have been given passports, have voted, have been drafted, and are treated exactly like any other American citizen.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark confirmed what has been the truth in the United States since its founding- that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen- the 14th Amendment really just overturned the Dred Scott decision.
> 
> If a President attempted to deport American citizens, he would of course be challenged- not by anyone on the right- because the issue of illegal aliens is an important issue to inflame their base- but by persons who cared about the Constitutional rights of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can challenge until they're blue in the face.  There has never been any such thing as birthright citizenship, and the next president and SCOTUS will set it straight.
Click to expand...


Most Americans are citizens because of 'birthright' citizenship. I am one- you might even be one assuming you are a citizen.

Anyway- you keep those fantasies going.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly possibly for the Supreme Court to reverse it's the decision but it's quite rare for them to do so.
> 
> A ruling that struct down birthright citizenship would at a minimum bring into question the citizenship of any child born in the US.  The birth certificate would no longer be proof of citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.
Click to expand...


I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans. 

The things I learn from posters here.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A case has never been brought before the Supreme Court to test and interpret the meaning of the 14th.   It has merely been an assumption that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens.   Time we test it once and for all for clarification.    You made this same stupid claim before that questions would arise on the citizenship of everyone.   I already debunked you on that..  Do I have to repeat that to you once again just like you constantly asking the same questions over and over even though they have been answered?   All one would have to do is to provide proof that their parents were either citizens of this country or legal residents.   Besides, once interpreted correctly it would only affect future births on our soil.
> 
> 
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.
> 
> The things I learn from posters here.
Click to expand...


Are you  really this dense?   It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future.    You do know what an analogy is don't you?


----------



## Oldglory1

Jackinthebox said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Reagan and the Bush clan did SOOOO much to stamp out illegals.
Click to expand...


Administrations for decades have been responsible for not stopping illegal immigration.    Both parties are guilty.   Now it is time to correct that situation. by enforcing our immigration laws on the books and removing all of the incentives for illegal aliens to come here.   One of the biggest draws is birthright citizenship for their kids.


----------



## Unkotare

All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should do a little research before you start writing.
> _*
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark*_, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> A case that would deny a child born in the US citizenship would never make it to the Supreme Court. With the clarity of the citizenship clause and the precedent set by the Wong Kim Ark case, SOCTUS would never hear the case.
> 
> 
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.
> 
> The things I learn from posters here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you  really this dense?   It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future.    You do know what an analogy is don't you?
Click to expand...


That was an analogy?

piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"

If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.

Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border. 

But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come. 

And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted. What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Reagan and the Bush clan did SOOOO much to stamp out illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Administrations for decades have been responsible for not stopping illegal immigration.    Both parties are guilty.   Now it is time to correct that situation. by enforcing our immigration laws on the books and removing all of the incentives for illegal aliens to come here.   One of the biggest draws is birthright citizenship for their kids.
Click to expand...


All you need to do to stop that one is change the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There doesn't need to be a case.  As soon as Obama is out, the next president will deport millions of illegal aliens, including anchor babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.
> 
> The things I learn from posters here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you  really this dense?   It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future.    You do know what an analogy is don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was an analogy?
> 
> piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"
> 
> If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.
> 
> Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.
> 
> But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

.
Ah,  now the truth comes out about you.   You're a Reconquista advocate.   Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for.   That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally.  And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.    Yes, the language of the 14th is quite clear.   Children of illegal aliens were never meant to be given birthright citizen in our country.   When will you admit that?   Again, on a personal note aside from what is written in the 14th why do you desire them to have our citizenship, Mr. Reconquista?   Why aren't you joining the move to change birthright citizenship?  The Constitution has been amended/modified many times to fit new circumstances.    An illegal invasion of our country by the millons with them dropping their kids on our soil is costing us dearly.    Do you give a damn about that?   Apparently not.   So just what is your agenda on a personal note?


----------



## JoeMoma

Unkotare said:


> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...


Well, quit your whining and do something.


----------



## Big Black Dog

Don't agree with the loop hole "anchor babies".  If your parents are here illegally and you are born here, then IMO you are also here illegally.  Throw them all out of the country and do away with the loop hole.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than the last 40 Presidents, nothing can be more un-American than an American hoping than American citizens will be illegally shipped out of the country by the government of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.
> 
> The things I learn from posters here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you  really this dense?   It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future.    You do know what an analogy is don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was an analogy?
> 
> piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"
> 
> If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.
> 
> Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.
> 
> But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ah,  now the truth comes out about you.   You're a Reconquista advocate.   Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for.   That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally.  And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.
Click to expand...


Once again- you don't have a clue about what I said. 

I was pointing out what the history of 'invasion' was- we 'invaded' Mexican lands first- by moving there. It wasn't illegal then, just like it wasn't illegal for most of our history for Mexicans to come to the United States.

They are not 'invading' the United States- no more than the Irishman who comes here on a tourist visa and just stays here and works is 'invading' 

I am against illegal immigration. I just don't believe the hype of the right wing and left wing talking points.


----------



## Syriusly

Big Black Dog said:


> Don't agree with the loop hole "anchor babies".  If your parents are here illegally and you are born here, then IMO you are also here illegally.  Throw them all out of the country and do away with the loop hole.



Do you know what the 'loop hole' is?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well putting aside your bizarre fantasy that the next President will act differently on immigration than Eisenhower did with Operation Wetback in 1954, nothing can be more un-American than allowing the INVASION of millions of foreign cheap labor "troops", pillaging our economy so bad that the $$ Mexico gets from us, is their # 1 source of income.  And allowing this invasion and plunder, after 407,000 American troops sacrificed their lives in World War II to stop just such an invasion, is beyond un-American.  It is despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.
> 
> The things I learn from posters here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you  really this dense?   It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future.    You do know what an analogy is don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was an analogy?
> 
> piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"
> 
> If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.
> 
> Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.
> 
> But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ah,  now the truth comes out about you.   You're a Reconquista advocate.   Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for.   That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally.  And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again- you don't have a clue about what I said.
> 
> I was pointing out what the history of 'invasion' was- we 'invaded' Mexican lands first- by moving there. It wasn't illegal then, just like it wasn't illegal for most of our history for Mexicans to come to the United States.
> 
> They are not 'invading' the United States- no more than the Irishman who comes here on a tourist visa and just stays here and works is 'invading'
> 
> I am against illegal immigration. I just don't believe the hype of the right wing and left wing talking points.
Click to expand...


So you're comparing a time when migrating here wasn't illegal to today when doing so without authorization from our government is?   Are you serious?   Overstaying one's visa is being here illegally also. But at least on a tourist visa they didn't come here  illegally in the first place so no the initial act wasn't invading albeit they became illegal by overstaying.  

You're the one who is clueless here, Mr. Reconquista.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I stated, we disagree on what it says. The right court could assert that it states what I say it does, especially if they look at the history of the amendment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
Click to expand...



You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
*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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*

Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.

Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.

To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court decided the matter of who is covered by jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark- when it decided that the child of two Chinese citizens born in the United States was a U.S. citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
Click to expand...


Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?

Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
Click to expand...

When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.

In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeMoma said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, quit your whining and do something.
Click to expand...



Not my ax to grind. I think the problem is with border enforcement, not the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
Click to expand...


LOL....says who? 

The 14th Amendment doesn't say a word about legal immigrants or illegal immigrants.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that the American troops in World War 2 fought to protect us from Mexicans.
> 
> The things I learn from posters here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you  really this dense?   It was analogy about protecting our country from invasion in the past, present and future.    You do know what an analogy is don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was an analogy?
> 
> piss poor one there- I don't know of any troops that fought in World War 2 with the motto "Today Germany, tomorrow Illegal Immigrants!"
> 
> If we were truly being invaded, then that 'invasion' started over 150 years ago when we Americans moved into land that Mexicans had already stolen from American Indians. Ever since that time, we have had a porous border, with Mexicans coming to the United States for work.
> 
> Now I am not in favor of illegal immigration and for the life of me, I do not understand why Bush didn't secure our Southern border after 9/11- there was never a time more ripe to beef up the border patrol and lock down that border.
> 
> But that doesn't mean we are being invaded- the number of illegals in the United States went down during the recession- because, unlike the fiction put out by many of those opposed to illegal immigration- most come here to work, and if there is no work they go home, or don't come.
> 
> And none of that has anything to do with the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Ah,  now the truth comes out about you.   You're a Reconquista advocate.   Any land that Mexico owned long ago was bought, fought and paid for.   That doesn't give Mexicans the right today to invade our country illegally.  And yes, it is an invasion as it is an unwanted intrusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again- you don't have a clue about what I said.
> 
> I was pointing out what the history of 'invasion' was- we 'invaded' Mexican lands first- by moving there. It wasn't illegal then, just like it wasn't illegal for most of our history for Mexicans to come to the United States.
> 
> They are not 'invading' the United States- no more than the Irishman who comes here on a tourist visa and just stays here and works is 'invading'
> 
> I am against illegal immigration. I just don't believe the hype of the right wing and left wing talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're comparing a time when migrating here wasn't illegal to today when doing so without authorization from our government is?   Are you serious?   Overstaying one's visa is being here illegally also. But at least on a tourist visa they didn't come here  illegally in the first place so no the initial act wasn't invading albeit they became illegal by overstaying.
> 
> You're the one who is clueless here, Mr. Reconquista.
Click to expand...


Whatever Mr. Denial. 

So once again- the language of the 14th Amendment is very, very clear- every child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen- except those not born within the jurisidiction of the United States.

Show me an example of any child born within the United States in the last 50 years, other than the child of a diplomat, who was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

You have yet to deal with that little issue of the actual language of the 14th Amendment. 

And that is why nothing will change unless someone wants to change the Constitution.


----------



## Flopper




----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonk Kim-Ark wasn't about illegal alien parents.   They were legal residents of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.

A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Unkotare said:


> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...



And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?

The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.

If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

80zephyr said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> In interpreting the citizenship clause, it makes no difference what the parents are.  It is the interpretation of the phrase, under the jurisdiction thereof.  In the Wong case ruling the court consider the phrase to mean, "being required to obey US law."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
Click to expand...


How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
Click to expand...




You should talk to the liberal left about that.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> 
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
Click to expand...



Tell it to the Supreme Court, whiner.


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- and they were foreigners, aliens- legal aliens, legal foreigners- but aliens, foreigners.
> 
> If you read Wong Kim Ark the court discusses jurisdiction- and concluded that the parents were subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- in the same way any illegal foreigner/aliens would be.
> 
> Still waiting for anyone to show me how a child born to illegal aliens is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.  

Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.  

One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> 
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
Click to expand...


A number of countries have changed away from birthright citizenship. If they can do it, I am quite sure the problem isn't insurrmuntable.

Besides, unless we go to it, we still have the same problem with illegals. Which I am sure we will have forever unless we finally fix the problem.

Mark


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A number of countries have changed away from birthright citizenship. If they can do it, I am quite sure the problem isn't insurrmuntable.
> 
> Besides, unless we go to it, we still have the same problem with illegals. Which I am sure we will have forever unless we finally fix the problem.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

And there is no evidence that abolishing birthright citizenship; that is jus soli has reduced illegal immigration elsewhere.  Even the assumption that abolishing it in the US will reduce illegal immigration has no creditable data to support it.

If we require that parents prove they are citizens, we will have more undocumented kids and they will give birth to more undocumented kids.

The issue is a distraction from the major cause of illegal immigration, jobs.

BTW, there are only two countries, that have abolish jus soli in it's entirely, India and Malta.  All the other countries have just restricted it.

Jus soli - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just flat out lying.  In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil.   Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over?   Polly wanna cracker?   Squawk, squawk.
> 
> 
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
Click to expand...


I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.



Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> 
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
Click to expand...


The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.

Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all. 

You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda. 

IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.

IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
Click to expand...


LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

_Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.*_
_*
You again:
*
And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.*
*
You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
*_
*Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud. 

*


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
Click to expand...


Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but  that's not whining on your part?   Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.


----------



## Oldglory1

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining.     Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
Click to expand...


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regard to the interpretation of the citizenship clause, there can be only one issue to consider; is the child born in the United States under jurisdiction of the United States.? There is no other issue to be considered.  If congress had wanted to exclude some groups such as criminals or foreigners, they would certainly have done so.
> 
> Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and *the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.*
> 
> *The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase (under the jurisdiciton) referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to almost all children born on American soil.
> *
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but  that's not whining on your part?   Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?

Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".

And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.

The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.

Can we agree on that point?

Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diplomat: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to his consulate.
> Illegal alien: runs red light and hits person- is given a ride back to the police station where he is booked and jailed.
> 
> Which is subject to the jurisidiction and which is not?
> 
> 
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
Click to expand...


Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
Click to expand...


Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.  

Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.

Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but  that's not whining on your part?   Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?
> 
> Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".
> 
> And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Can we agree on that point?
> 
> Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.
Click to expand...


I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out.  It is hypocritical  for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't?    One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna  cracker" counter remarks.    I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all.  Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here.     I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens  on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence.   So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions.   I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery  out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars.   Silence once again.  Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."  (Jacob Howard, May 1866)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?
Click to expand...


They are if their parents are legal residents of this country.    They hold allegience to this country then.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but  that's not whining on your part?   Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?
> 
> Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".
> 
> And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Can we agree on that point?
> 
> Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out.  It is hypocritical  for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't?    One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna  cracker" counter remarks.    I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all.  Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here.     I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens  on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence.   So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions.   I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery  out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars.   Silence once again.  Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.
Click to expand...


I am glad to point out your hypocrisy again if that is what you want to discuss rather than address my question:


What you said:

_According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up_.

my response

LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?

Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:

_Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:
*
And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.

You again:

Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.

You again:

Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
*_
*Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.

Must make you proud.*


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are if their parents are legal residents of this country.    They hold allegience to this country then.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that?

If legal residents have 'allegiance' to the United States why do they have to give an oath of allegiance when they become Naturalized?

_"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."_


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A number of countries have changed away from birthright citizenship. If they can do it, I am quite sure the problem isn't insurrmuntable.
> 
> Besides, unless we go to it, we still have the same problem with illegals. Which I am sure we will have forever unless we finally fix the problem.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there is no evidence that abolishing birthright citizenship; that is jus soli has reduced illegal immigration elsewhere.  Even the assumption that abolishing it in the US will reduce illegal immigration has no creditable data to support it.
> 
> If we require that parents prove they are citizens, we will have more undocumented kids and they will give birth to more undocumented kids.
> 
> The issue is a distraction from the major cause of illegal immigration, jobs.
> 
> BTW, there are only two countries, that have abolish jus soli in it's entirely, India and Malta.  All the other countries have just restricted it.
> 
> Jus soli - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


And the countries that restrict it require LEGAL residency for citizenship birth. And again, doing nothing means the problem never goes away.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this whining, and still nothing is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? Its been that way with every issue. Are gun control advocates gonna stop whining? Or will they continue until they get their way?
> 
> The "squeaky wheel gets the grease", is an old time political saying. If enough of us bitch, we might get the changes we desire.
> 
> If the gay agenda has taught us anything, its that bitching, pissing, moaning, and yes, whining...works.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
Click to expand...


When you are saying "you again" is that aimed at me? As to my comment, I was responding to the charge of whining. My proof that both sides do it is what I was stating.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what they interpreted.  What matters is what US officials interpret, once we're rid of Obama. That will be Operation Wetback II.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can quote Howard as much as you want, but the fact is Howard's statement is not in the amendment but rather Congress  approved a more inclusive statement,
> *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. (14th amendment of the US Constitution  July 9, 1868).*
> 
> Your argument is based on your belief that congress and the state legislatures that ratified the amendment* assumed* that the amendment would not apply to children of foreign parents.  How could they possibly have made such an assumption?  There were many foreigners in this country who came to the US raised families and never applied for citizenship.  If Congress had meant to exclude their children, they would have done so by including Howard's statement but they didn't.
> 
> Prior to the 14th amendment, foreigners moved to the US, settled, and raised families; after 14 years, they could appear in any court and declare their residence and thus become citizens provided they had given notice of their intent 5 years prior.  However, many never did, particular in rural areas and territories.  With the freeing of the slaves, America was becoming a nation filed with people who considered themselves Americans but were without citizenship.  The 14th amendment solved the problem in a simple but elegant way.
> 
> To argue that children of foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not only ridiculous but was settled in the Wong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
Click to expand...


In essence, you are saying that since proof is scarce, all of us are de facto citizens.

No one can be deported, because we simply don't know.

I'm amazed anyone can think like that. We have the capability to prove what we need to.

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but  that's not whining on your part?   Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?
> 
> Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".
> 
> And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Can we agree on that point?
> 
> Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out.  It is hypocritical  for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't?    One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna  cracker" counter remarks.    I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all.  Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here.     I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens  on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence.   So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions.   I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery  out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars.   Silence once again.  Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad to point out your hypocrisy again if that is what you want to discuss rather than address my question:
> 
> 
> What you said:
> 
> _According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up_.
> 
> my response
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.*
Click to expand...


I already addressed your above remarks.   You need them repeated again?   When are you  going to answer my questions?  Tick, tock, tick tock.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are if their parents are legal residents of this country.    They hold allegience to this country then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that?
> 
> If legal residents have 'allegiance' to the United States why do they have to give an oath of allegiance when they become Naturalized?
> 
> _"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."_
Click to expand...


Because they have to swear on paper that they do by saying the oath.  It's a formality.  Duh!


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will interpret the law the same way it has been interpreted for the last 50 years- no matter how much you fantasize about deporting American citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children of "foreigners"?  Again, you mix legal immigrants with illegal aliens.  The foreigners in question are parents here illegally.     What part of that aren't you getting?
> 
> Again, Wong was about parents here legally not illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
Click to expand...

The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.

The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.

And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .


----------



## Spare_change

We need to enforce the immigration laws ... if it calls for deportation of illegal immigrants, we should deport them. That ain't 'rocket surgery'. 

If that means that parents have to make a decision whether to leave their baby behind or take it with them ... so be it. It was their actions that resulted in the situation, and they should be held culpable.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
Click to expand...


What do other countries do that require that at lest one parent be a citizen of their country?   Maybe you should look into that instead of throwing up all your strawman arguments.    I don't know how you figure that would increase illegal immigration.   Quite the opposite would occur.   Don't really give a damn how any of this affects illegal aliens anyway.    Their kids have no right to our citizenship.


----------



## Unkotare

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that those born in the United States who are born with citizenship of another country are therefore not American citizens when they are born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are if their parents are legal residents of this country.    They hold allegience to this country then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that?
> 
> If legal residents have 'allegiance' to the United States why do they have to give an oath of allegiance when they become Naturalized?
> 
> _"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they have to swear on paper that they do by saying the oath.  It's a formality.  Duh!
Click to expand...


But if as you say that they already have allegiance to the United States- why would they have to swear allegiance to the United States- and at that point renounce allegiance to any other state?

Clearly they still have allegiance to other states. 

Example- I had a friend who was born a dual U.S. and Swiss citizen. He was born here, but his parents were Swiss nationals. He had to be careful when he visited Switzerland not to stay more than a specific time period- if he stayed beyond it, he was subject to the Swiss draft.

That was because even though born in the United States and being a U.S. Citizen he also had 'allegiance' to Switzerland AND if he was within Swiss jurisidiction- he was subject to Swiss laws- including the draft on citizens.

Allegiance is not jurisidiction and jurisdiction is not allegiance.

Anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen except children of diplomats.

Don't like that- then change the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who started out in here making accusations of whining in the first place?  It wasn't me!  I merely countered to defend myself and pointed out that discussing an issue isn't whining and it is hypocritical for your side to be able to express your views but  that's not whining on your part?   Issues should be able to debated without that uncalled for labeling just to shut someone up you don't agree with.   Yes, I am proud that I am willing to discuss things like an adult but will defend myself when attacked first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that if you feel attacked- you will act in exactly the manner you condemn in others?
> 
> Yes- I accused you of whining. And I will come back to that. You then accused 'liberals' of being hypocritical and 'trying to shut down the opposition".
> 
> And I provided 4 quotes of you specifically trying to shut down my contributions- because you don't like what I was saying. I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Can we agree on that point?
> 
> Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that I would defend myself.by calling you hypocrites out.  It is hypocritical  for you to call my discussing of the issue as whining but you expressing your opposing view isn't?    One of you in here kept asking that same old question over and over even though it was answered (though not to your liking of course) therefore my "Polly wanna  cracker" counter remarks.    I have asked questions in here my self that were NEVER answered at all.  Yet you demand yet again I answer a question that I have already answered over and over and so have others who share my views in here.     I asked just what is the agenda of you pro-birthright citizenship for newborns of illegal aliens  on a "personal" level aside from what either of us interpret from the meaning of the 14th and if you have ethnic ties to illegal aliens and all I got was silence.   So don't talk to me about supposed unanswered questions.   I also asked why you and yours in here wouldn't join the movement to have it reinterpreted since it does make a mockery  out of it and it is costing us billions in tax dollars.   Silence once again.  Yes, hypocricy rules in here but not by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad to point out your hypocrisy again if that is what you want to discuss rather than address my question:
> 
> 
> What you said:
> 
> _According to the liberal left in here it's only bitching and whining when conservatives do it about issues that concern them.    If they do it as you amply supplied evidence of it's a whole different story.   What hypocrites they are!    They just want to silence the opposition so they belittle them to shut them up_.
> 
> my response
> 
> LOL....lets talk about 'hypocrites' who belittle to shut people up.....shall we?
> 
> Quotes from your- Oldglory posts:
> 
> _Now you're just flat out lying. In Wong Kim Ark there was no comparison made in that case to illegal alien parents giving birth on our soil. Still repeating the same old question that has been answered over and over? *Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> *
> And you have been told for days now how illegal aliens and their spawn are not within the full jurisdiction of our country. Their allegiance and citizenship is in their own homelands. They aren't even legal residents. Has nothing to do with them having to obey our laws while on our soil. You are mixing apples with oranges here.* Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Still parroting the same old crap when all of your questions have been addressed over and over? Why even continue responding if you think discussing this issue is just whining? I know I am done listening to YOUR whining rather than civil debate which allows differing of opinions backed up by common sense of the obvious intents of the 14th amendment and the qualifying word of "AND" for birthright citizenship. Any loyal American would fight to stop this scam of our citizenship by illegal aliens and yet you seem to like it. Which are you a bleeding heart liberal or do you have connections to illegal aliens?. . Never mind, I no longer give a damn! Done with your crap.
> 
> You again:
> 
> Polly wanna cracker? Squawk, squawk.
> *_
> *Yes- there is hypocrisy going on- yes there is belittling going on- and yes there is an attempt to 'silence the opposition'- and its been done by you- Oldglory.
> 
> Must make you proud.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed your above remarks.   You need them repeated again?   When are you  going to answer my questions?  Tick, tock, tick tock.
Click to expand...


 I kept repeating myself because you will not seriously address the most salient issue- every person born in the United States is a U.S. Citizen except those born not in the jurisdiction of the United States.

The language is very clear- the only question is what is 'jurisdiction'.

Can we agree on that point?

Do you agree that anyone born in the United States is a citizen- except those not born in the jurisdiction of the United States?

If you want a serious conversation- answer that question and we can proceed in a non-confrontational, fact and logic based discussion.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do other countries do that require that at lest one parent be a citizen of their country?   Maybe you should look into that instead of throwing up all your strawman arguments.    I don't know how you figure that would increase illegal immigration.   Quite the opposite would occur.   Don't really give a damn how any of this affects illegal aliens anyway.    Their kids have no right to our citizenship.
Click to expand...


What do other countries do that require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country?  Although it varies by country most allow children that are born without parental documentation to remain in the country with legal status. They can either determine the parents citizenship or wait until the age specified in the law and then make application for citizenship at that time.


In France, they allow children of foreign parents to remain legally in the country until they are 18 and then they are allowed them to apply for citizenship.  Children born in Germany to foreign parents may acquire German nationality between the ages of 18 and 23.

I don't think you would like what most of these countries are doing since they allow the children not only to remain in the country but provide a path to citizenship.

Jus soli - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Oldglory1

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies



Thanks. 

I find their position to be a little biased, but they present your argument in a fairly clear fashion.

I don't agree with how they logical equate allegiance to jurisidiction, but I can see by reading this, why you keep making the same argument.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that it will stay the same? The SCOTUS has recently changed gun laws, political donation laws, and eminent domain laws that were "set" for years.
> 
> A Congress, a president, or a court is not held to the results of a past decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the 14th amendment was being debated which is what I was discussing, there really were no illegal immigrants.  You were technically either an American citizen a foreigner.
> 
> In the Wong case, the court made it clear that jurisdiction meant "subject to the laws of the United States".  Wong would have been subject to our laws even if the parents were illegal.  To argue otherwise would be nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
Click to expand...

Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ?  HA HA.  So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ?  I mean really.


----------



## protectionist

Unkotare said:


> Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."


FALSE!  See post # 132.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
Click to expand...


False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oldglory1 said:


> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies


“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  ...




You haven't "debunked" anything, oldgloryhole. You have merely insisted upon your own completely inexpert _opinion_. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee (it's extra because the coffee shop charges you to have them listen to your bullshit).


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...

 
If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above. 

The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property.  It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals.  Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Past decisions are important to the court.  In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions.  In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
> 
> One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences.  The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
> 
> Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby.  This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
> 
> One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship.  These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents.  In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship?  God damn you're dense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ?  HA HA.  So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ?  I mean really.
Click to expand...

You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."


----------



## 80zephyr

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark



Feel free to name names. 

I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.

Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher). 

I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.

Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages.  There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.

But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them).  Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed. 

My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.

Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it. 

Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.

And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
> 
> The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property.  It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals.  Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
Click to expand...


The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.

Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.

Only a complete moron can't understand that.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
Click to expand...


The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all. 

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark. 

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## Syriusly

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.

Still waiting for an example- any example- of a person- other than a diplomat or his/her family- that is in the United States and not subject to the 'jurisdiction thereof'.

Because that is what it comes down to- the first part is all inclusive- anyone born in the United States is a citizen. 

Who is not 'subject to the jurisdiction' and how are they not?

Still can't figure out why all your hardcore anti- 'anchor baby' posters won't take on that issue with anything more than opinions.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
> 
> The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property.  It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals.  Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
Click to expand...

Changing the interpretation of the citizenship clause does not effect just the children of illegal aliens but every parent or child born in US.

Until the immigration acts in the late 1800's, an immigrant to the United States simply settled in a state or territory, raised a family, and considered themselves Americans.  The legal issues for citizenship were far more complicated.  At the time of the 14th amendment, immigrants were required to live in the United States for a period of 14 years before application for citizenship.  To become a citizen of the US, the immigrant was required to file an intent to become a US citizen in any state or territorial court at least 5 years before applying for citizenship.  This was complicated even further because a person could become a citizen of a state and still not be citizen of the US.  Unlike today, application for citizenship was a formality.  No penalty was imposed for not becoming a citizen and there were little benefit in doing so.  Thus many immigrants, particularly those settling in rural areas never became citizens nor did their children. They and their parents and all their offspring to follow, were undocumented immigrants.  Claiming that Congress who spent months debating the 14th amendment never intended to extend citizenship to these people seems rather unrealistic.
History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> 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.
> 
> Still waiting for an example- any example- of a person- other than a diplomat or his/her family- that is in the United States and not subject to the 'jurisdiction thereof'.
> 
> Because that is what it comes down to- the first part is all inclusive- anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
> 
> Who is not 'subject to the jurisdiction' and how are they not?
> 
> Still can't figure out why all your hardcore anti- 'anchor baby' posters won't take on that issue with anything more than opinions.


I think you're going to have to wait a long time for an answer because the only persons in the US not under it's jurisdiction are those with diplomatic immunity.

The only case the opposition can make is Congress in their months of debate couldn't understand what jurisdiction meant or they passed an amendment to the constitution that they didn't understand.  Both arguments are just a bit absurd.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name names.
> 
> I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.
> 
> Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).
> 
> I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.
> 
> Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages.  There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.
> 
> But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them).  Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.
> 
> My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.
> 
> Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.
> 
> Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.
> 
> And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.
Click to expand...


I must say, this is one of the better well reasoned responses posted on this issue. While I still disagree with the "clear" language you assert in the Amendment, your points are well thought out and well reasoned.

For that, I say "kudo's". Even if we don't agree as to some of the issues or solutions.

When we "shout down" immigration reform, we do it for a reason. We understand that it will gain citizenship for millions of illegals, while doing nothing to stem the tides of future illegals coming in. The ONLY immigration reform both parties want is millions more immigrants. And they really don't care whether they are legal or illegal.

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
> 
> The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property.  It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals.  Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.
> 
> Only a complete moron can't understand that.
Click to expand...


While aliens are subject to our laws, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. For instance, it is why illegals that break our laws are shipped back to their country.

Mark


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
> 
> The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property.  It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals.  Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.
> 
> Only a complete moron can't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While aliens are subject to our laws, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. For instance, it is why illegals that break our laws are shipped back to their country.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Illegal immigrants that commit crimes within the US are sometimes returned to their country of origin in lieu of prison or they may be returned as an undesirable alien but for the most part, illegal aliens guilty of crimes other than violation of immigration laws are tried, convicted, and punished under the jurisdiction of federal or state government.

Generally speaking, you fall under the jurisdiction of the country that you currently reside whether you are there legally or illegally..


----------



## JoeMoma

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.


----------



## Flopper

JoeMoma said:


> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.


That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.


----------



## Oldglory1

80zephyr said:


> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark



They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name names.
> 
> I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.
> 
> Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).
> 
> I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.
> 
> Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages.  There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.
> 
> But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them).  Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.
> 
> My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.
> 
> Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.
> 
> Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.
> 
> And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.
Click to expand...


So it matters not to you that illegal aliens specifically Mexicans have taken jobs from American and reduced their wages?    Just as long as they work hard that's all that counts?    Americans don't work hard?   Our taxes are much higher supporting the social costs of illegal aliens also.   Our schools, jails and hospitals are overcrowded due to this uncontrolled population growth.  Our crime is higher including ID theft that they commit to work or evading taxes by working for cash.  So just what is this boon you speak of other than making their employers richer by working for less?

There already is a way for foreigners to come here and pick crops legally.   They are the H-2A visas and are unlimited. .But again the greedy growers can make more profit off of illegal alien labor instead none if little do they pass any savings on to the consumer.   They only pass their social costs on to us. 

When millions of illegal aliens have managed to breach our borders what are the odds that other dangerous people and deseases can be brought in?   Surely you can't be this naïve.  Xenophobia has nothing to do with it since we already are a diverse country  and we allow in over 1 million legal immigrants annually.

Reform?     There is only amnesty being proposed.     Are you also so naïve that you don't think that it will just encourage more to come to get in on the next amnesty?  We already went through this in 1986 and look where we are today.    We need the jobs they are holding we have 23 million unemployed  American right now.  Why in the world would any loyal American want them to remain here and retain those jobs or compete against Americans for them?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...


Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
Click to expand...


Changing the Constitution.....oh the horror!   Remind me again of how many times it has been amended.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.  ...




You're an illogical idiot, oldgloryhole.


----------



## Oldglory1

I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum.    What a great feature to use and I did.    I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate.   They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.


----------



## JoeMoma

Flopper said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
Click to expand...

Well Duh!  

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.


----------



## Flopper

JoeMoma said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
Click to expand...

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.


----------



## JoeMoma

Flopper said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Click to expand...


Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.

For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and they will not come, they will not stay.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
Click to expand...

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.  

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.


----------



## Flopper

JoeMoma said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
Click to expand...

What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
Click to expand...


Well that is just waaaay to reasonable. 

No one will ever agree to reasonable solutions.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum.    What a great feature to use and I did.    I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate.   They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.



In other words- you just found out you don't have to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you.

How very brave.


----------



## JoeMoma

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that automatic citizen for a baby born to  illegal immergrants gives zero incentive for people to cross the border illegally?  Also, are you saying that there are no issues with deporting illegal immigrants that are parents of citizen children ( hince the term anchor babies)?

Post hoc fallacy my ass!


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to name names.
> 
> I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.
> 
> Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).
> 
> I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.
> 
> Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages.  There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.
> 
> But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them).  Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.
> 
> My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.
> 
> Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.
> 
> Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.
> 
> And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it matters not to you that illegal aliens specifically Mexicans have taken jobs from American and reduced their wages?    Just as long as they work hard that's all that counts??
Click to expand...


Clearly you either a) didn't read my post or b) have a serious reading comprehension problem or c) are just stupid.

Because your response has nothing to do with my post- so here- let me post it again:

Feel free to name names.

I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.

Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).

I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.

Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages. There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.

But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them). Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.

My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.

Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.

Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.

And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

FLOPPER SAID:

“What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?”

None.

Just as there's no legal or Constitutional evidence justifying interpreting the Citizenship Clause as denying citizenship to those born in the United States solely because of the condition of the parents.


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum.    What a great feature to use and I did.    I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate.   They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.




Oldgloryhole is all puckered up.


----------



## JoeMoma

Flopper said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
Click to expand...


Citizen children is a major issue/obstacle when enforcing immergration laws with illegal immergrants parents, hince the term ANCHOR baby.

As for as there being no credible evidence that changing the law would help, all we have to rely on is logic.  Since our citizenships have not changed since the 14th ammendment, of course there is no empirical evidence that if would help, because it has not been tried.

As far as your "Third" statement, if nothing is changed, history will continue to repeat itself.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
> 
> The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property.  It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals.  Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.
> 
> Only a complete moron can't understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While aliens are subject to our laws, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. For instance, it is why illegals that break our laws are shipped back to their country.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


But if those aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- who could the United States ship them anywhere? They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country once they are deported there. 

Illegals who break our laws are subject to criminal prosecution and prison- and are typically deported after they finish their criminal sentences here. 

Tell me how though this differs from legal aliens? Legal aliens are treated exactly the same way when it comes to crimes and prosecution.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
Click to expand...


By that perverted 'logic', everyone who is arguing against 'anchor babies' are small minded fascists, or racists. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about the Constitution- they just want to deny children citizenship.

See how that works?

No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
Click to expand...


Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment. 

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens. 

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that perverted 'logic', everyone who is arguing against 'anchor babies' are small minded fascists, or racists. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about the Constitution- they just want to deny children citizenship.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.
Click to expand...


If it were truly about racism then wouldn't I object to children of legal residents being given birthright citizenship also?    But I don't so stick your race card where the sun don't shine!   I do give a damn about the Constitution and that is why it makes me sick to see it twisted and misinterpreted as it is.   Besides, amendments have been made to it for some time now so according to you that would be not honoring its original writing's, right?

See how THAT works?


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in  here over and over.  The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
Click to expand...


You conveniently left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens and the qualifier of "and" subject to subject to our jurisdiction.  If the above were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then what would have been the need for that qualifier in the first place?  It was a separate qualifier from diplomats.   Being subject to obeying our laws has nothing to do with that qualifier and certainly wasn't intended to bestow citizenship by birth on the children of illegal aliens.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
Click to expand...


Race card pulling duly noted!   There are millions of Hispanics here both legally and that are citizens of this country.   I don't object to their kids being given citizenship in this country.   I do object to children of illegal aliens regardless of their nationality or ethnic makeup being given it,  however.   I don't hate diversity but do you call it diversity when millions of illegal aliens are here from mostly one ethnic group.  Do you also not know that Mexicans and other Latinos hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country by far?   That's not diversity!

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

Birthright citizenship is indeed one of the magnets that draws illegal aliens here.   The fact that Obama has just decided that illegal aliens that have so-called citizens children here can remain here is proof of that.   Not only that but they are entitled to all sorts of welfare thru their U.S. born kids.   How can you not see what a big incentive that is?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum.    What a great feature to use and I did.    I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate.   They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words- you just found out you don't have to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> How very brave.
Click to expand...


I'm reading yours, aren't I?   The person I have on ignore is because he constantly kept referring to me in  a derogatory manner and kept insulting me with his one liners.  That isn't debate.    Sorry that you can't recognize the difference between civil debate between two people who disagree and name calling and insults.   It's disappointing that you don't know the difference.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
Click to expand...


Then explain the difference in 'jurisdiction'.

Legal residents are here with the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Illegal residents are here without the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I don't confuse anything- I am trying to get you to stay on point and discuss the issue you seem to be concerned about.

The language of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship is short and clear:

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.

Can you agree that the only part of that statement that we are in disagreement about is this phrase:
_and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?_

So how is a legal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but an illegal alien not subject to it?

Both can be arrested. Both can be prosecuted and imprisoned. Both can be deported. Both still have allegiance to the country that they are citizens of. 

So what 'jurisdiction' is it that legal aliens are subject to- that illegal aliens are not?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that perverted 'logic', everyone who is arguing against 'anchor babies' are small minded fascists, or racists. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about the Constitution- they just want to deny children citizenship.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were truly about racism then
Click to expand...


I will quote you the last line from the post you are responding to:

_No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around._


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
Click to expand...


The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum.    What a great feature to use and I did.    I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate.   They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words- you just found out you don't have to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> How very brave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reading yours, aren't I?   The person I have on ignore is because he constantly kept referring to me in  a derogatory manner and kept insulting me with his one liners.  That isn't debate.    Sorry that you can't recognize the difference between civil debate between two people who disagree and name calling and insults.   It's disappointing that you don't know the difference.
Click to expand...


My apologies- I thought you were speaking about everyone who disagreed with you.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain the difference in 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Legal residents are here with the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> Illegal residents are here without the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> I don't confuse anything- I am trying to get you to stay on point and discuss the issue you seem to be concerned about.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship is short and clear:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Can you agree that the only part of that statement that we are in disagreement about is this phrase:
> _and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?_
> 
> So how is a legal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but an illegal alien not subject to it?
> 
> Both can be arrested. Both can be prosecuted and imprisoned. Both can be deported. Both still have allegiance to the country that they are citizens of.
> 
> So what 'jurisdiction' is it that legal aliens are subject to- that illegal aliens are not?
Click to expand...


Again, you keep going back to being subject to our laws as a qualifier for birthright citizenship.  Anyone within our borders is subject to obeying our laws but that doesn't equate to gaining birthright citizenship for your kids.   Look at the debates that went on when the amendment was written.   I have no way to convince you otherwise as you completely disregard my comment that why was the qualifier of "and" subject our jurisdiction put in the amendment if one is automatically subject to our jurisdiction just by being here?    I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as all we are doing is repeated ourselves and beating our head on the wall.   I just wish you'd explain to me why you won't join the movement to end this nonsense since it makes a mockery of our citizenship and it is costly us dearly in tax dollars supporting these millions of kids from illegal alien parents and is one incentive for them to continue to come here. Obama just encouraged more by allowing those with U.S. born kids to remain here.    So lets' just start discussing this issue from that point of view from now on, shall we?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
Click to expand...


Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
> 
> You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
> 
> That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *


----------



## Syriusly

So what does jurisdiction mean? 

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or 
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
Click to expand...


"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as all we are doing is repeated ourselves and beating our head on the wall.   I just wish you'd explain to me why you won't join the movement to end this nonsense since it makes a mockery of our citizenship and it is costly us dearly in tax dollars supporting these millions of kids from illegal alien parents and is one incentive for them to continue to come here. Obama just encouraged more by allowing those with U.S. born kids to remain here.    So lets' just start discussing this issue from that point of view from now on, shall we?



I have already said that if you want to change the plain language of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of illegal aliens, then the only method to do so is to pass another amendment. The devil would be in the details. Depending on how it was worded- I might support such an amendment. 

But frankly in today's hyper partisan atmosphere when it comes to immigration reform- its not going to happen. 

I am all for comprehensive immigration reform that seriously addresses immigration and:
a) creates a more secure border(no border can be absolutely secure- people even escaped through the Berlin wall)
b) makes employers responsible for ensuring that they hire only employees legally entitled to work in the United States-
c) but only after giving employers the tools that they can use to verify employee legal status- e-verify is on the right track but is far from perfect.
d) identify how we will get the legal immigrant labor that we do need- and make that work.
e) identify the sectors of employment we do not want or need additional legal immigrant workforce, and focus enforcement efforts on employers in those industries. 
f) a rational approach to bring legal status to those currently in the U.S. illegally but responsibly- I am opposed to a pathway to citizenship for anyone who has entered the United States illegally.


----------



## Flopper

JoeMoma said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
> 
> I just don't get it.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves.   Thus their position.   They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to  our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer.    Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above?   It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before.   Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship?   The answer lies in my first sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that automatic citizen for a baby born to  illegal immergrants gives zero incentive for people to cross the border illegally?  Also, are you saying that there are no issues with deporting illegal immigrants that are parents of citizen children ( hince the term anchor babies)?
> 
> Post hoc fallacy my ass!
Click to expand...

In every good myth, there exist at least a few grains of truth and there are certainly a number of grains of truth in the Anchor Baby myth.

Do our birthright laws provide any incentive to illegally immigrate to the US?  Of course they do, but so do many other aspects of life in the US.

A Pew Research Center report quoted in Congress and the media claims that over 340,000 children are born each year to at least one undocumented parent. Using that study, opponents of immigration reform have painted a picture of a hoard of young pregnant girls coming to the US to "drop and leave" their unborn.  What they do not tell you is that 80% of those children in the study are born after they been in the US one year and the majority of them were after 5 years of residence.  That blows a giant hole in the notion that mothers are crossing the U.S.-Mexican border just in time to give birth in American hospitals.

It is also alleged that women illegally immigrate to the US to have babies so the children will provide an "anchor", thus preventing the mother from being deported.  There is some truth in this but just a grain.  The mother or father who is scheduled for deportation may have their removal cancelled provided they can prove they have lived in the US for a minimum of 10 years, are providing the support for the child, are of good moral character and have not been convicted of a felony.  The immigration service caps the cancellation of removal at 4000/yr.  The actual number of cancellations have been well below that cap.  Claiming that young women enter the US to have children so if they get tapped for deportation after 10 years, they might be able to get the deportation cancelled is a bit ridiculous.

It is also claimed that an "Anchor baby" will be able to sponsor parents, brothers, sisters, and friends; again a grain of truth.  The child can sponsor others but only after reaching age 21.  Also, sponsoring a person does not mean automatic legal status.  There are still a number of criteria that must be met to attain legal residence in the US.  So does this provide an incentive to illegally enter the US?  Maybe, but those incentives are long term and certainly of questionable value.

Lastly, it is claimed that these anchor babies will provide welfare and a number benefits for the family; again a grain of truth.  The child being a US citizens is entitle to Medicaid and some other benefits provided certain criteria are met. The parent must apply for the child and meet the income requirements. The benefits are paid only for the child not the remainder family. Claims of the economic drain on society posed by these children fail to take into account the taxes and other economic contributions that the US citizen child will pay over a lifetime.  There are many successful people in our society who were born of illegal parents, one being a US senator. 

So yes, there is some truth to the anchor baby myth but nothing like the opponents of immigration reform claim.  Any sort of near term benefit accrues to child not the mother.  Other benefits are long term, 10 or 20 years and are of questionable value.

http://www.scottimmigration.net/AnchorBaby.pdf
Dispelling 8220 Anchor Baby 8221 Myths TIME.com


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens.  I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this.  Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents.   so why do you continue to bring up that case?      Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
Click to expand...


What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States  legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.
> 
> Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
Click to expand...


Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again. 

'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.

Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that. 

The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States. 

And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens. 

If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and  I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem.  If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.
> 
> I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration.  The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems.  We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
Click to expand...


It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the _post hoc_ fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
Click to expand...


Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...


NO,  the Supreme Court has not!    There has never been a case brought before them about children of illegal aliens.   Yes I am for changing, re-interpreting or amending the Constitution on birthright citizenship for the reasons I have stated.    Will you join this movement?   Didn't think so as your agenda trumps common sense.  No need for any further discussion on this then, is there?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO,  the Supreme Court has not!    There has never been a case brought before them about children of illegal aliens.   Yes I am for changing, re-interpreting or amending the Constitution on birthright citizenship for the reasons I have stated.    Will you join this movement?   Didn't think so as your agenda trumps common sense.  No need for any further discussion on this then, is there?
Click to expand...


I already quoted the Supreme Court on the issue- but am glad to do so again:

So what does jurisdiction mean? 

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or 
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
Click to expand...


Don't give a crap about anti-"immigrants".   I am not one of them.  No,  children of illegal aliens are citizens of their parent's country.   They didn't break our immigration laws their parents did but that doesn't entitle them to our citizenship.  Keep grasping at straws it's fun to watch.    Are you ready to join our rmovement?  If not, why do you continue with this as we aren't going to agree on the intent of the 14th.


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins *All persons born or naturalized..* which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...


No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  And since we cannot agree on the intent  are you ready to move forward and help push legislation to require and clarify that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of this country in order for their offspring to acquire birthright citizenship?     I think I know the answer to that so there is no further need to discuss this.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give a crap about anti-"immigrants".   I am not one of them.  No,  children of illegal aliens are citizens of their parent's country.   They didn't break our immigration laws their parents did but that doesn't entitle them to our citizenship.  Keep grasping at straws it's fun to watch.    Are you ready to join our rmovement?  If not, why do you continue with this as we aren't going to agree on the intent of the 14th.
Click to expand...


I am not the one trying to convince everyone that the Supreme Court hasn't said what it has said, and isn't trying to convince everyone that the law is being interpreted incorrectly- that would be you.

IF a child born in the United States to illegal parents  is not born a U.S. Citizen, then that child is born an illegal alien.

There are no other possibilities. 

And per the plain language of the 14th Amendment- that child is indeed a U.S. Citizen.

If you don't like that- then change the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the disconnect here?
> 
> These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.
> 
> But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.
> 
> And that is because it applies exactly the same.
> 
> IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.
> 
> And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
Click to expand...


I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed. 

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or 
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the same!   Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about.   You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not.   You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.    It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction  and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing.    You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
Click to expand...


I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court.   Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation  to put a stop to this nonsense?  Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death.   Why is that?


----------



## Oldglory1

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court.   Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation  to put a stop to this nonsense?  Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death.   Why is that?
Click to expand...


This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue.   So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States"  The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause.  The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government.  So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read,* " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court.   Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation  to put a stop to this nonsense?  Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death.   Why is that?
Click to expand...


"This nonsense" is the subject of this thread.

I have attempted to engage you in substantive debate on the issue- using the actual language of the 14th Amendment, and actual Supreme Court decisions that address birthright citizenship- and 'jurisdiction'.

You refuse to address the Supreme Courts comments in Pyler regarding 'jurisidiction'- which I am not surprised by- since that decision eviserates your claims about your interpretation about 'jurisdiction. 

I have given my position regarding both comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and how to change the Constitution so that you no longer have to worry about American citizens being called 'anchor babies'.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat.  What it actually states is the only thing relevant.  "And", etc. is a qualifier.    If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally?   Apples  and oranges do not make your case.   As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars?   Are you up for it?   Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens.   So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means.  Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death.     I certainly don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court.   Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation  to put a stop to this nonsense?  Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death.   Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue.   So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.
Click to expand...


then stop replying to me. You stopped making substantive replies ever since I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court has ruled on 'jurisdiction' and illegal aliens.

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or 
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
Click to expand...


Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.

Mark


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause,* "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." * grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.
> 
> Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical.  If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

Most married illegal immigrants are married to legal residence.


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> 
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple.
Click to expand...


Nothing in life is simple.   You just have to decide if it's worth it or not to fight for something.  In this case it is.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most married illegal immigrants are married to legal residence.
Click to expand...


So?   And link, please.


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Duh!
> 
> And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.
> 
> Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill.  First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US.  Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration.  Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most married illegal immigrants are married to legal residence.
Click to expand...


And? It doesn't change my statement.

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.
> 
> 'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.
> 
> If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court.   Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation  to put a stop to this nonsense?  Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death.   Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue.   So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then stop replying to me. You stopped making substantive replies ever since I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court has ruled on 'jurisdiction' and illegal aliens.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
Click to expand...


Ok, so you are going to continue with this even though I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th?   I asked you to move forward and join our movement to end this nonsense and you refuse to even address that.   So I have no other alternative but to ignore you from now on.


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws.  Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one.  Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless.  Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway.  That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.
> 
> For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc.  In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.
> 
> 
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
Click to expand...


What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

80zephyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


They simply don't care.   Their agenda trumps that.


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
Click to expand...

How does one commit a crime by being born?


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does one commit a crime by being born?
Click to expand...


Who said they did?


----------



## Unkotare

Oldgloryhole is still trying to pretend he's a constitutional scholar.


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does one commit a crime by being born?
Click to expand...


LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?  There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have.  If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration.  That evidence just doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


What if it doesn't?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  the Supreme Court has made no such ruling.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court.   Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation  to put a stop to this nonsense?  Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death.   Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue.   So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then stop replying to me. You stopped making substantive replies ever since I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court has ruled on 'jurisdiction' and illegal aliens.
> 
> Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.
> 
> _Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._
> 
> While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
> a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
> b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you are going to continue with this even though I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th?   I asked you to move forward and join our movement to end this nonsense and you refuse to even address that.   So I have no other alternative but to ignore you from now on.
Click to expand...


As I said before- if you don't want to be confronted by the facts, all you have to do is stop responding.

Clearly you are not willing to discuss the very substantive issue you claimed to care about in the first place. 

You were the one who claimed that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

But when I pointed out that the Supreme Court has specifically said that they are- suddenly you don't want to talk about the 14th Amendment anymore. 

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._

Feel free to post whatever anti-immigration stuff you want. 

You just aren't able to argue that the 14th Amendment supports your claims.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
Click to expand...


That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Who cares if it impacts illegals anyway?   Of course re-interpreting the law would be better for our own citizens.  First off it would be less of an incentive for illegals to come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country via giving birth on our soil.   Second, there would be less drain on our tax coffers, less crowded schools and healthcare facilities. and all the other associated costs with a larger population.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.
> 
> Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.



You're grasping at straws here.   Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien.   There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship.   In fact it is clear that is doesn't.  There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant".  It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.

Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing  to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.
> 
> Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're grasping at straws here.   Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien.   There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship.   In fact it is clear that is doesn't.
Click to expand...


Actually there is nothing in the 14th Amendment which excludes illegal aliens from birthright citizenship. 

The language is quite clear. Anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

And the Supreme Court already said that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Pyler.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign.  Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law. 

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids.    Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does one commit a crime by being born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....
Click to expand...

My point is you can't commit a crime by being born.  For the child, it is a passive event beyond the child's control.  After birth, the child is technical committing a crime by living here.  However, whether that crime can be prosecuted depends on the age of responsibility which varies with the crime and the state.

One thing many people ignore is the legal complexity of deportation.  In order to deport a person, the receiving country must be willing to accept the person.  Since the United States has extradition treaties will almost all countries, it's not usually a problem.

However, children present a problem.  No country will accept deported young children without parents or a guardian to care for them which means someone has to locate such a person.  If no one can be found the receiving country has to make the child a ward of the state before they can be deported.  If the child claims that they are a victim of human trafficking or other acts covered by US laws, then the court has to make a decision on the validity of the claim.  In the case of the thousands of children who have crossed our southern boarder, many of these are not from Mexico, so the deportation has to occur between the US an the child's country, not Mexico.  The time, the cost, and legal hoops of deporting children without the family means that most of these kids will remain in the US indefinitely. This is just one the problems that needs to be addressed by immigration reform.


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does one commit a crime by being born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is you can't commit a crime by being born.  For the child, it is a passive event beyond the child's control.  After birth, the child is technical committing a crime by living here.  However, whether that crime can be prosecuted depends on the age of responsibility which varies with the crime and the state..
Click to expand...


Yeah- my post was mostly intended to tweak the noses of those who insist that the children born of illegal aliens in the United States somehow are differently legally than the children of legal aliens born in the United States.

Note- not a single one of these 'defenders of the 14th Amendment' will even attempt to explain how children born in this country to aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Notice how not one of them attempted to address the Supreme Court's clear enunciation that illegal aliens in this country are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Dred Scott was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made- but I don't think anyone tried to pretend that the United States could just ignore what the Supreme Court decided. Instead our country passed an amendment to in effect overrule Dred Scott.

If those folks don't like the 14th Amendment- then the amendment process is there for them to pursue.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.
> 
> Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're grasping at straws here.   Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien.   There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship.   In fact it is clear that is doesn't.  There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant".  It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.
> 
> Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing  to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?
Click to expand...

By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.
> 
> Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're grasping at straws here.   Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien.   There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship.   In fact it is clear that is doesn't.  There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant".  It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.
> 
> Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing  to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.
Click to expand...


They should be deported right along with their parents.   Denying them citizenship will have the opposite affect as you are claiming because it will be one incentive removed to come here illegally in the fist place.   There is no denying that.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if it impacts American citizens for the better?
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
Click to expand...


As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

*"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the 
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested 
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out 
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in 
which it was passed." 
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The 
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark


----------



## Syriusly

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


And ignore the language.

Which means use whichever interpretation fits the whimsy of the current political atmosphere.

The only question in the 14th Amendment is whether or not illegal aliens fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that they do.

In order to argue for going for 'original intent' - you have to actually ignore what the 14th Amendment says. 

And once you do that, anyone can argue it means anything.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False- see the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.
Click to expand...

FALSE!  See post # 132.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ?  HA HA.  So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ?  I mean really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."
Click to expand...


 Calling illegal aliens _"undocumented persons"_ is about the equivalent of calling bank robbers "informal withdrawl agents"


----------



## protectionist

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ?  HA HA.  So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ?  I mean really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what the hell is "jus soli" ?
Click to expand...


duplicaTE


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


*Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## protectionist

xxxx


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.
> 
> Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're grasping at straws here.   Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien.   There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship.   In fact it is clear that is doesn't.  There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant".  It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.
> 
> Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing  to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be deported right along with their parents.   Denying them citizenship will have the opposite affect as you are claiming because it will be one incentive removed to come here illegally in the fist place.   There is no denying that.
Click to expand...

That myth has already been debunked. 340,000 a year will joint the ranks of the undocumented.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
> 
> The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
> 
> Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
> 
> You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
> 
> IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
> 
> IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen.  10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one.  There are millions of parents who simply would bother.  Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born.   Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the horror.   It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one.  They say they don't know how to get one?   Are you for real?    Excuse after excuse.   Just like the voter ID laws.  If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents?    If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
> 
> Some don't know where their parents were born?   Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother?    No one is advocating for this to be retroactive.    It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
> 
> Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship.   I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends.  Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids.  Just look at France.  They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.
> 
> The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation.  Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
> 
> And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ?  HA HA.  So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ?  I mean really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."
Click to expand...

I won't even ask for an explanation of this lunacy, since it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  It is pure JIBBERISH.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.
> 
> Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're grasping at straws here.   Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien.   There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship.   In fact it is clear that is doesn't.  There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant".  It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.
> 
> Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing  to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be deported right along with their parents.   Denying them citizenship will have the opposite affect as you are claiming because it will be one incentive removed to come here illegally in the fist place.   There is no denying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That myth has already been debunked. 340,000 a year will joint the ranks of the undocumented.
Click to expand...

Yeah ?  "Debunked" where ?  By whom ?  When ?  How would deporting people, cause there to be MORE people in the US ?  Are they going to grow out of bean pods ? (like in the movie_ Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ ?)  

How could there be more aliens in the US, if a new Operation Wetback (total mass deportation including anchor babies) was enacted ?


----------



## Flopper

80zephyr said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if it doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...

How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False- see the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
Click to expand...

False- see the 14th Amendment.

Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.

As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


_*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_

*Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
*
_*
*_


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
Click to expand...

If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.

14th Amendment Site


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
Click to expand...

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False- see the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False- see the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to
Click to expand...

FALSE!  See the 14th amendment and the explanation of it, by it's author.

*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
Click to expand...


Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?
Click to expand...

That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.

_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. _

The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself.   It's an ample term for the situation.   Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil.  No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did.   You're just spinning the truth now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.
> 
> Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does one commit a crime by being born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is you can't commit a crime by being born.  For the child, it is a passive event beyond the child's control.  After birth, the child is technical committing a crime by living here.  However, whether that crime can be prosecuted depends on the age of responsibility which varies with the crime and the state..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- my post was mostly intended to tweak the noses of those who insist that the children born of illegal aliens in the United States somehow are differently legally than the children of legal aliens born in the United States.
> 
> Note- not a single one of these 'defenders of the 14th Amendment' will even attempt to explain how children born in this country to aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
> 
> Notice how not one of them attempted to address the Supreme Court's clear enunciation that illegal aliens in this country are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Dred Scott was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made- but I don't think anyone tried to pretend that the United States could just ignore what the Supreme Court decided. Instead our country passed an amendment to in effect overrule Dred Scott.
> 
> If those folks don't like the 14th Amendment- then the amendment process is there for them to pursue.
Click to expand...


Yes, children born here are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. And? Their illegal parents are also subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Does that make the parents citizens? If not, why does it extend to their children?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Syriusly said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ignore the language.
> 
> Which means use whichever interpretation fits the whimsy of the current political atmosphere.
> 
> The only question in the 14th Amendment is whether or not illegal aliens fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> And the Supreme Court has already ruled that they do.
> 
> In order to argue for going for 'original intent' - you have to actually ignore what the 14th Amendment says.
> 
> And once you do that, anyone can argue it means anything.
Click to expand...


I think you have that backwards. Like Jefferson said, you can twist words into any meaning you want. The ONLY THING that should be considered is the original intent.

Without using original intent, are you not doing what you are claiming here? Interpreting words to fit what you believe they say, not what they were meant to say?

And if you are, can't we also do that to every word in the Constitution?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.
Click to expand...


No one hates or fears Hispanics. I have them I my family. Personally, I am of Polish descent, and if illegal Poles are here, I want their asses OUT.

Are you now saying I hate or fear white people?

Mark


----------



## 80zephyr

Flopper said:


> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
Click to expand...


There are people that claim the 2nd Amendment does not allow for individual ownership of guns, only militias. They "interpret" what they read to suit their agenda. To them the language is "clear".

Now, using original intent as Jefferson stated, it would be impossible to make such a claim. Same logic applies here.

Mark


----------



## Oldglory1

80zephyr said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one hates or fears Hispanics. I have them I my family. Personally, I am of Polish descent, and if illegal Poles are here, I want their asses OUT.
> 
> Are you now saying I hate or fear white people?
> 
> Mark
Click to expand...


Exactly.    What a ridiculous notion that this is about hating Hispanics.  Hispanics aren't the only ones here illegally and giving birth on our soil.     If they are here legally I have no problem with them as long as they assimilate and respect our laws.   I also object to birth tourism of which it is mostly Asians that are the most guilty of that.


----------



## 1751_Texan

DGS49 said:


> A court challenge would require a suit by a state attorney general - say of Texas - who sues the federal government for reimbursement of costs spent to educate and otherwise care for anchor babies.  The claim would be that the Feds have erroneously declared these fukkers to be citizens, and eligible for state benefits.
> 
> Uphill battle, to be sure, even if the USSC were populated by people who take the Constitution seriously.  Which it is not.



You must not be know that Texas has was over-ruled by the US Supreme Court when Texas tried to claim that illegal alien children had to pay for their education in Texas. The USSC ruled that *all children* are entitled to a public education including illegal alien children. Plyler v. Doe 
FindLaw Cases and Codes

If the Court ruled in favor in illegal alien klds...anchor babies are golden.


----------



## 1751_Texan

The 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment have nothing in common as to language other that both are amendments. 

American language of the 1780's is quite different and distinct than that of language of America of the 1880's.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
Click to expand...

*It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America


----------



## Oldglory1

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
Click to expand...


Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

I accept your resignation.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oldglory1 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

I say deport everyone who's great grand parents weren't born here


----------



## 1751_Texan

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
Click to expand...


The language does exclude children of illegal aliens.   It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.
Click to expand...


These illegal aliens parents can't prove they are in this country legally (because they're not) therefore they are illegal aliens.  That's all it should take is to prove you are in this country as a legal resident and that their children are entitled to birthright citizenship.   Otherwise no!

If I have a driver's license then that is proof that I am authorized to drive.   If not, then I am not authorized to drive.    It's as simple as that and is the same thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, most of you anti-anchor baby butt holes do hate Hispanics.

Nope, the law will not change.

Ese.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, most of you anti-anchor baby butt holes do hate Hispanics.
> 
> Nope, the law will not change.
> 
> Ese.



Not all anchor babies are from Hispanic illegal aliens so you can stick your race card where the sun don't shine!  This has nothing to do with hate but putting some respect back in to our citizenship laws and saving us billions in tax dollars.    Why do you hate non-Hispanic Americans so much that you don't want that, ESE?   It would deter more illegal aliens from coming here also.  Don't like that either right, ESE?  Because that would put a crimp in your ethnocentric, racist Reconquista agenda, right ESE?   If any one is the hater and racist it is your and your fellow Reconquista amigos.    Don't hold your breath that birthright citizenship isn't going to change.   You'd lose, ESE.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> The language does exclude children of illegal aliens.   ...



No, it doesn't, oldgloryhole. Stop trying to play Jr. Constitutional Scholar.


----------



## Flopper

1751_Texan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
Click to expand...

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.


----------



## JoeMoma

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.


----------



## Oldglory1

JoeMoma said:


> Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.
> 
> I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.



I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me.  WTH does that mean?    Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1, please, don't act like Ernie S. or Listening or a dozen others who believe they can't be treated humorously or sarcastically.  You don't have the final answer.  I don't.  Only SCOTUS does (and maybe that clairvoyant, CrusaderFrank), and this particular Court won't even consider it.  Why should it?


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1, please, don't act like Ernie S. or Listening or a dozen others who believe they can't be treated humorously or sarcastically.  You don't have the final answer.  I don't.  Only SCOTUS does (and maybe that clairvoyant, CrusaderFrank), and this particular Court won't even consider it.  Why should it?



Who the hell is Ernie S. and Crusader Frank and why are you comparing me to them?  This is a serious issue and shouldn't be treated in a humorous or sarcastic manner.   It is costing our country billions of dollars a year and encouraging illegal immigration.  Where has the SC denied re-considering the birthright citizenship clause?   Why should it?  Because it is being misinterpreted, that's why.  Even if it weren't many countries have changed their birthright citizenship requirements so that at least one parent has to be a citizen or legal resident of their countries.  It only makes sense that we should do likewise based on the above.


----------



## JakeStarkey

One, of course the issue is serious.

Two, you are too serious.

Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.

Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.

Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.

Good luck.


----------



## JoeMoma

Oldglory1 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.
> 
> I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me.  WTH does that mean?    Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?
Click to expand...

I am actually on your side that children of illegal immergrants should not have birthright citizenship. However, I know of no cases that could go to the Supreme Court to challenge how the U.S. goverment currently interprets the constitution on this issue.


----------



## Oldglory1

JoeMoma said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.
> 
> I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me.  WTH does that mean?    Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am actually on your side that children of illegal immergrants should not have birthright citizenship. However, I know of no cases that could go to the Supreme Court to challenge how the U.S. goverment currently interprets the constitution on this issue.
Click to expand...


Why couldn't they?   There has been a bill lagging outside of committee in congress for two years now.   Eventually the sheet is going to hit the fan over the millions invading our country illegally and giving birth on our soil which is costing us dearly and it is going to reach critical mass.    PC is going to go by the wayside then.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> One, of course the issue is serious.
> 
> Two, you are too serious.
> 
> Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.
> 
> Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.
> 
> Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.
> 
> Good luck.



It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem.  Only a few feel as I do?   New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade 

I have no idea what your last sentence means.


----------



## 1751_Texan

Flopper said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't be changing the Constitution if the SC merely looked at all the arguments and intent of the writer's of the 14th at the time.    It would merely be re-interpreted  the way it was meant to be.    You are correct though if it's about an actual amendment it does have to go through congress.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, of course the issue is serious.
> 
> Two, you are too serious.
> 
> Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.
> 
> Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.
> 
> Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem.  Only a few feel as I do?   New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade
> 
> I have no idea what your last sentence means.
Click to expand...


Neither do I understand you.  Very few care about the amendment process, and I also think you should check the polling dynamics of Rasmussen.

But, as I said, begin your educational awareness fight.  Good luck.


----------



## Flopper

JoeMoma said:


> Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.
> 
> I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.


It the citizenship clause meant that the children born to illegal immigrants are not citizens, then they will be undocumented, 340,000 a year according to the Pew Research Center.  Since most of these children are not the first born in the US, in the unlikely event, that the INS comes calling, there're not going to be deported.  However, future American parents would be faced with proving their citizenship.  The bottom line is we would have a lot more undocumented immigrants, American citizens without documentation and illegal immigrants claiming to be Americans without documentation. 

.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, of course the issue is serious.
> 
> Two, you are too serious.
> 
> Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.
> 
> Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.
> 
> Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem.  Only a few feel as I do?   New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade
> 
> I have no idea what your last sentence means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do I understand you.  Very few care about the amendment process, and I also think you should check the polling dynamics of Rasmussen.
> 
> But, as I said, begin your educational awareness fight.  Good luck.[/QUO
> 
> Rasmussen is a very biab
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, of course the issue is serious.
> 
> Two, you are too serious.
> 
> Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.
> 
> Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.
> 
> Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never being too serious for us to get serious about this costly problem.  Only a few feel as I do?   New High 65 Oppose Automatic Citizenship for Children Born Here to Illegal Immigrants - Rasmussen Reports trade
> 
> I have no idea what your last sentence means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do I understand you.  Very few care about the amendment process, and I also think you should check the polling dynamics of Rasmussen.
> 
> But, as I said, begin your educational awareness fight.  Good luck.
Click to expand...


Just what is it that you don't understand about me?   I've made myself very clear.  Again, I ask you what do you mean by educational awareness.   I've asked twice now. 

Why don't you post a poll that is contrary to the Rasmussen one then?   You don't like the results so you dismiss them?


----------



## Flopper

1751_Texan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.  I was speaking of the constitution after the court interprets it to mean something different than  before the interpretation.

Your point brings up an interesting thought.  If the court interpreted the Citizenship clause to mean it would exclude the children of illegal immigrants, the question of birthright citizenship would fall back on congress to define exactly what birthright citizenship means, as to which parent does the child inherit citizenship.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are very aware of what 'educational awareness' means.

If you have the numbers you think you have, then you must educate and mobilize.  Study Martin Luther King Jr. on these issues.


----------



## JakeStarkey

1751_Texan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
Click to expand...


The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> 
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
Click to expand...


The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it.   It is just an assumption.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> You are very aware of what 'educational awareness' means.
> 
> If you have the numbers you think you have, then you must educate and mobilize.  Study Martin Luther King Jr. on these issues.



I've already posted the numbers.  65% of Americans don't want children of illegal aliens to gain birthright citizenship.  If you have a viable poll that says differently then please post it.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> 
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
Click to expand...


The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it.   It is just an assumption.
Click to expand...

They aren't going to review it until a case before them requires it.  SCOTUS doesn't just pick a part of the constitution to review.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of what oldgloryhole _thinks_ he understands about "rights."
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False- see the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  See post # 132.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False- see the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a U.S. citizen.
> 
> As millions and millions of U.S. passport holders can attest to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  See the 14th amendment and the explanation of it, by it's author.
> 
> *"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*
Click to expand...


Just like he says- everyone but foreigners who belong to the families of diplomats:
\
The language is quite clear. Anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

And the Supreme Court already said that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Pyler.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
Click to expand...


I am fairly confident that the Supreme Court would disagree with you. They have devoted a large part of their life to the law and the Constitution- I may not agree with what Scalia has to say, but I would not impugn him by saying he hasn't bothered to try to understand the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?
Click to expand...


I am talking to the asshole who can't read the 14th Amendment. 

I am talking to the asshole who can't read Supreme Court rulings.

I am talking to the asshole who just reads what he wants to read.



The language is quite clear. Anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

And the Supreme Court already said that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Pyler.

_Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms,* the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, *and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.* That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, *and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter.* Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -*- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish._


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accept your resignation.  Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Yeah- those are stones the size of rice.......


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language does exclude children of illegal aliens.   It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.
Click to expand...


Yet you have never been able to show how the language would exclude children of illegals.

Nor have you been able to discuss the Supreme Courts decision in Pyler- ruling that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Clearly the language doesn't include children of illegal aliens. 

Otherwise you would have been able to explain how it does.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.
> 
> I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me.  WTH does that mean?    Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am actually on your side that children of illegal immergrants should not have birthright citizenship. However, I know of no cases that could go to the Supreme Court to challenge how the U.S. goverment currently interprets the constitution on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why couldn't they?   There has been a bill lagging outside of committee in congress for two years now.   Eventually the sheet is going to hit the fan over the millions invading our country illegally and giving birth on our soil which is costing us dearly and it is going to reach critical mass.    PC is going to go by the wayside then.
Click to expand...


its been in committee for 2 years?

Clearly neither party wants it to emerge.

Or it doesn't exist.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's humor Oldglory for the moment.  Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States.  The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship.  The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero.  The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment.  Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.
> 
> I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution.  However, that horse has already left the barn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me.  WTH does that mean?    Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?
Click to expand...



Watch out- if you don't post right- he might ignore you.......


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it.   It is just an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't going to review it until a case before them requires it.  SCOTUS doesn't just pick a part of the constitution to review.
Click to expand...


The anti's have one thing right- though they don't understand that. 

The only real way a case will go before the Supreme Court is if Congress passes a law saying children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens is not a citizen.

That would set up a test case. Otherwise I don't see who would have standing to push a case through on the issue.


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language does exclude children of illegal aliens.   It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you have never been able to show how the language would exclude children of illegals.
> 
> Nor have you been able to discuss the Supreme Courts decision in Pyler- ruling that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Clearly the language doesn't include children of illegal aliens.
> 
> Otherwise you would have been able to explain how it does.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the opposition claims that jurisdiction in the 1800's didn't really mean what it means today.  However, that can't be substantiated by the Webster's 1829 dictionary.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the _Plyler _Court:

'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.'

Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
Click to expand...


What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
Click to expand...


Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We don't see slavery the same way.

We don't see the female vote the same way.

And various other ways,

The world turns and so do we.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> We don't see slavery the same way.
> 
> We don't see the female vote the same way.
> 
> And various other ways,
> 
> The world turns and so do we.



But we will never see illegal immigration in any other way but wrong because it harms our country  and so is birthright citizenship for their kids harming our nation.    Females not being able to vote or slavery isn't the same thing.  Those were civil rights issues for Americans.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
Click to expand...


There has never been a case/lawsuit brought before the SC about denying birthright citizenship for a child of illegal aliens.   They aren't understanding anything it has merely been presumed.   I already told you that before.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Here's a thought, lets drop kick the anchor babies back where they came from, along with all their close and extended relatives


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the _Plyler _Court:
> 
> 'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.'
> 
> Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute



Nope, you are wrong!


----------



## Unkotare

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Here's a thought, lets drop kick the anchor babies back where they came from, along with all their close and extended relatives




Here's another thought: try kicking US citizens anywhere and you're likely to receive a well-deserved kicking yourself. Maybe it's more productive to stop posting such stupid, self-indulgent, emo shit.


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it.   It is just an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't going to review it until a case before them requires it.  SCOTUS doesn't just pick a part of the constitution to review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti's have one thing right- though they don't understand that.
> 
> The only real way a case will go before the Supreme Court is if Congress passes a law saying children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens is not a citizen.
> 
> That would set up a test case. Otherwise I don't see who would have standing to push a case through on the issue.
Click to expand...

If congress passed a law abridging the rights of a child born in the US to illegal aliens or if a lower court upheld a case in which such a child's rights were abridge, then it would surely go before SCOTUS.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.  

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
Click to expand...

 
Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the _Plyler _Court:
> 
> 'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.'
> 
> Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you are wrong!
Click to expand...


Yet you- and all of your anti-immigration buddies refuse to attempt to explain why you think he- and I are wrong.

Plyler is very clear- you just ignore it and hope everyone else will

What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the _Plyler _Court:

'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.'

Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
Click to expand...


See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
Click to expand...

 
The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause.  Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen."  Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has never been a case/lawsuit brought before the SC about denying birthright citizenship for a child of illegal aliens.   They aren't understanding anything it has merely been presumed.   I already told you that before.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has addressed jurisdiction and the Supreme Court- and said that illegal aliens are within the jurisidiction of the United States.

And since per the Supreme Court, illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States- they are citizens, as per the 14th Amendment.

No way around it- and it is the hurdle you will face if you ever get a case before the Supreme Court.


----------



## Oldglory1

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
Click to expand...


Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.


----------



## Conservative65

Oldglory1 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.
Click to expand...

 
It's holding the country down.


----------



## Oldglory1

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
Click to expand...


If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Conservative65

Oldglory1 said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

 
The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.


----------



## Oldglory1

Conservative65 said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
Click to expand...


Some who want the status quo to continue are ethnocentric, racists also.  They are of the Reconquista mindset.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's holding the country down.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking. 

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents. 

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
Click to expand...


Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's holding the country down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.
> 
> I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.
> 
> But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.
Click to expand...

 Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
Click to expand...

 
It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's holding the country down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.
> 
> I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.
> 
> But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?

You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?

IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's holding the country down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.
> 
> I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.
> 
> But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?
> 
> You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

 
One of the reasons.  If you don't think illegals knowing they can stay if they squit out a child here draws them, you're a fool.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

_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. _

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term.  Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor.   These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's holding the country down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.
> 
> I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.
> 
> But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?
> 
> You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons.  If you don't think illegals knowing they can stay if they squit out a child here draws them, you're a fool.
Click to expand...


You are the one who thinks that the 14th Amendment is why our border is so porous. 

Now that is foolish.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?
> 
> _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. _
> 
> So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?
Click to expand...

 
Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we.  You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough.  Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare.  Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's holding the country down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.
> 
> The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.
> 
> I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.
> 
> But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?
> 
> You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons.  If you don't think illegals knowing they can stay if they squit out a child here draws them, you're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who thinks that the 14th Amendment is why our border is so porous.
> 
> Now that is foolish.
Click to expand...

 
You're one that thinks it has nothing to do with it.  Now that's idiotic but expected from an idiot.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive.    However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship.    It would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?
> 
> _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. _
> 
> So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we.  You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough.  Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare.  Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.
Click to expand...


Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
_All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.-_ IF THEY ARE
_
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.
_
*So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?*

It is just one sentence.


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?
> 
> _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. _
> 
> So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we.  You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough.  Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare.  Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.-_ IF THEY ARE
> _
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> are citizens.
> _
> *So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?*
> 
> It is just one sentence.
Click to expand...


----------



## Conservative65

Syriusly said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?
> 
> _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. _
> 
> So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we.  You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough.  Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare.  Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.-_ IF THEY ARE
> _
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> are citizens.
> _
> *So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?*
> 
> It is just one sentence.
Click to expand...

 
Why are you unwilling to address the intent of those that wrote it?

Why do you think you know more about the INTENT of the wording than those that wrote it?  They were far smarter than you ever will be yet you take something way out of the context in which it was designed. 

I've addressed the language along with the mindset behind those that wrote it.  You take words only.  I take words and look at what those that wrote meant behind those words.  I'll take their explanation over your simple minded pro anchor baby view any day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._

However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

As is the case with those who seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward gay Americans, so too do those who seek to deny American citizens born in the United Stats their citizenship rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward Hispanics, and the fallacy that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acts as an 'incentive' for those to enter the United States absent authorization.  

Fear of change and diversity, along with animus toward a given class of persons, does not justify seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously.  SCOTUS understands it all better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SC hasn't bothered to understand it.   The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
Click to expand...

They could hardly have missed it.  It's in the first sentence.


----------



## Flopper

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, Oldglory1?  SCOTUS understands far better than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it.  It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.
> 
> The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason.  No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote.  Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is how the anchor baby concept works.  The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.
Click to expand...

The "anchor baby" concept does not work, never has, and never will.  As I have said before, there is always a grain of true in any good myth and the "anchor baby" myth is no exception.  Republicans in congress and the conservative media have chosen to make the "anchor baby" myth a key issue in the immigration debate.

The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here.  There is a bit of truth here.  In the unlikely event a parent is tapped for deportation, the parent may apply for cancellation of deportation if the child is a US citizen and that parent provides the financial support for the child.  This rule does not apply to all family members.  Further, the number of cancellations of deportation is capped at 4,000/yr.  With the exception of one year, the actual number of cancellations has been much less than 4,000 which is only .03% of the number of estimated undocumented immigrants in the US.
In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.  According to the rules of the immigration service, that "anchor baby" can not sponsor anyone.  Once the child reaches 21, they may sponsor their parents or children without a significant wait.  For other relatives and friends the wait is a minimum of 3 years and is not valid for a person living illegally in the US.
If you think this is why young women risk their lives and well being to enter the US illegally, think again.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._
> 
> However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.
> 
> So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.



Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists?   We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin?   The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified.  They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars.    So just what is your agenda?


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

The wetbacks and packies just take jobs, food, and other resources from tax paying AMERICANS. 
If they want freedom, they should convert to our religion, kick the Islamic jihadists out of their own nation, and work for a living instead of living off my tax dollars!!!


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As is the case with those who seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward gay Americans, so too do those who seek to deny American citizens born in the United Stats their citizenship rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward Hispanics, and the fallacy that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acts as an 'incentive' for those to enter the United States absent authorization.
> 
> Fear of change and diversity, along with animus toward a given class of persons, does not justify seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties.



There is nothing in the Constitution that approves of or denies gay marriage so you are comparing apples to oranges here.  Oh stop  with the race card.   No one hates Hispanics that are here legally and it isn't only illegal alien Hispanics that are giving birth on our soil.  It's not a fallacy that birthright citizenship attracts illegal aliens.  Even heard of birth tourism which is what many Asians do to gain citizenship for their kids?    Who in their right mind would desire change that includes illegal immigration into their country by the millions?    Mexicans enjoy the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country by far not to mention that they are the largest group here illegally also.     Do you call that diversity?

These anchor babies are not citizens according to the writers of the 14th no matter what you claim.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._
> 
> However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.
> 
> So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists?   We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin?   The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified.  They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars.    So just what is your agenda?
Click to expand...


You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.

Continue your movement.  It will continue destined for failure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food


  An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._
> 
> However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.
> 
> So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists?   We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin?   The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified.  They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars.    So just what is your agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.
> 
> Continue your movement.  It will continue destined for failure.
Click to expand...


And as a loyal Americans why wouldn't you want to join that movement  since it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in tax dollars?  It's not like the Constitution hasn't been modified before.  What's your agenda?


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

JakeStarkey said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food
> 
> 
> 
> An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food
> 
> 
> 
> An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.
Click to expand...

God is full of hate for many people., mostly those who are different than us


----------



## Flopper

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._
> 
> However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.
> 
> So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists?   We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin?   The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified.  They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars.    So just what is your agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.
> 
> Continue your movement.  It will continue destined for failure.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of the Birther Conspiracy but will less substance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And since there is no substance to the birfer beliefs, the nativist anchor-baby wailing is merely wailing.


----------



## Flopper

JakeStarkey said:


> And since there is no substance to the birfer beliefs, the nativist anchor-baby wailing is merely wailing.


That seems to be case.  I think their logic run something like this.  If we could just deny these children citizenship, then the hoards of Latin Americans wouldn't come to the US to seek jobs, to be with their families, and to escape crime and violence.  11 million illegal immigrants would pack up and go home.


----------



## Conservative65

Flopper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._
> 
> However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.
> 
> So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens. Nativists?   We have no problem with legal immigrants nor their kids here so you were sayin?   The only ones screeching in here are those who refuse to look at what arguments were made about birthright citizenship when the 14th was ratified.  They like you, refuse to at least admit it and join the movement to change it because it attracts illegal aliens and is costing us billions in dollars.    So just what is your agenda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have an opinion, yes, but you are not an authority on the matter.
> 
> Continue your movement.  It will continue destined for failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It reminds me of the Birther Conspiracy but will less substance.
Click to expand...

You remind me of a traitor to his country.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell  outta having it decided for us.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
Click to expand...


FALSE!

Of course it's important what Howard meant when he authored the 14th amendment.  What he meant is what the 14th amendment always has been > NO ANCHOR BABIES.


----------



## protectionist

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The language does exclude children of illegal aliens.   It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.
Click to expand...


----------



## protectionist

1751_Texan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
Click to expand...

NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.
Click to expand...

There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
Click to expand...


He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

_*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.
Click to expand...


You are within the height of STUPIDITY.  I AM a Hispanic, you dolt.  My grandparents immigrated here from Central America (British Honduras - now called Belize), and I've spoken fluent Spanish desde mil novacientos cinquenta y nueve. (since 1959)

And yes, the amendment DOES make reference to the condition of ones parents >  "*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*
  This is understood in the amendment, from the mouth and pen of its author.


----------



## protectionist

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are very aware of what 'educational awareness' means.
> 
> If you have the numbers you think you have, then you must educate and mobilize.  Study Martin Luther King Jr. on these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted the numbers.  65% of Americans don't want children of illegal aliens to gain birthright citizenship.  If you have a viable poll that says differently then please post it.
Click to expand...

It's probably more like 85%.   Polls are done by phone, and many of the respondents are illegal aliens themselves, who don't count.


----------



## Unkotare

^^^


----------



## protectionist

Unkotare said:


> ^^^


Never mind that.  THIS is what you should be paying attention to >>  CDZ - Funeral This Weekend For Slain NYPD Ofiicer Wenjian Liu US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't talk stupid.  You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.
> 
> _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. _
> 
> The Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are within the height of STUPIDITY.  I AM a Hispanic, you dolt.  My grandparents immigrated here from Central America (British Honduras - now called Belize), and I've spoken fluent Spanish desde mil novacientos cinquenta y nueve. (since 1959)
> 
> And yes, the amendment DOES make reference to the condition of ones parents >  "*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*
> This is understood in the amendment, from the mouth and pen of its author.
Click to expand...


That is not part of the amendment. 

At all. 

That is a comment by one person.

here is what the 14th Amendment says about citizenship

_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._

Nothing about illegal aliens at all 

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Diplomats- and their families.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents can be legal resident foreigners.   The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents.  I said we will have to agree to disagree on  the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, .
Click to expand...


The U.S. government disagrees- which is why citizens born of either legal or illegal aliens are issued U.S. passports.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.
Click to expand...


American troops in WW2 didn't sacrifice any lies to prevent what you called anchor babies. 

They didn't even know what illegal aliens were.


----------



## Syriusly

Conservative65 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted.  It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?
> 
> _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. _
> 
> So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we.  You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough.  Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare.  Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.-_ IF THEY ARE
> _
> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> are citizens.
> _
> *So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?*
> 
> It is just one sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you unwilling to address the intent of those that wrote it?
> .
Click to expand...


Because as in all things- the language is the law. 

Not your interpretation of what the intent behind the law was.

So once again

Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
_All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.-_ IF THEY ARE
_
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.
*So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?*

*And why can none of you tell us that?*
_


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> [
> These anchor babies are not citizens according to the writers of the 14th no matter what you claim.



What you call 'anchor babies' are citizens according to the 14th Amendment.

No matter what you claim.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept _Plyler._
> 
> However, SCOTUS does.  It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.
> 
> So screech and leech.  It makes not a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pyler had nothing to do with illegal aliens.
Click to expand...


Since i have quoted Pyler multiple times now- you are now just lying.

_(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. *Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.*_


So once again- the Supreme Court has quite firmly stated that illegal aliens are within the jurisidiction of the United States.

Not one of you nativists has been willing to tackle the Supreme Courts decision in Plyler and explain how the children of Illegal aliens cannot be citizens.


----------



## Oldglory1

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food
> 
> 
> 
> An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still better than the jiggaboos who breed like rabbits just for more stamp food
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An unchristian remark by you, and, yes, white women on welfare have children out of wedlock as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is full of hate for many people., mostly those who are different than us
Click to expand...


God is full of hate?   WTH are you talking about?   It's not about the difference in the races/ethnic groups for most Americans.  It's about violating our immigration laws and I don't give a damn what they look like!   There are millions of legal immigrants/citizens in this country who are "different" from one another.    That isn't the objection,  race card puller!


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Deport them all equally and fairly.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

*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.
*
Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.

SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Actually a more lethal fence would solve the problem


----------



## 1751_Texan

protectionist said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners.  On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment.  Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners.  Sen. John Conness of California stated*:  “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States*.  Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California.  To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.
> 
> Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.
> 
> If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NONSENSE, and you are a traitor to this country to approve of this massive invasion of our land, after 407,000 US troops sacrificed their lives in World War II, to prevent exactly that.
Click to expand...


Hey Pops, I did not write the 14th amendment...running around calling people "traitors" just goes to prove how disconnected from reality you are. Rant on old dude.


----------



## 1751_Texan

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Actually a more lethal fence would solve the problem



You can't even pay for the fence there is now and you want a killer fence..??? It's like you're lost in a world all your own.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Make the minorities pay before deporting them back to some middle eastern third world hell hole and cess pit


----------



## 1751_Texan

> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.



How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.


----------



## 1751_Texan

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Make the minorities pay before deporting them back to some middle eastern third world hell hole and cess pit


More of your delusions seeping out...


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
Click to expand...


They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> If their parents are illegal aliens they just aren't entitled to our citizenship by birth.  .





The law says otherwise, oldgloryhole.


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a more lethal fence would solve the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even pay for the fence there is now and you want a killer fence..??? It's like you're lost in a world all your own.
Click to expand...


Who's "you"?    A fence/wall would come out of all of our taxes.   It would be money well spent compared to the billions of tax dollars we spend every year on illegal aliens.  Not to mention the loss of jobs, resources, increased crime and uncontrolled population growth from illegal immigration.   No killer fence is needed.  Just erect the double layered wall that was approved but not funded by congress along the most porous parts of the border and the BP can take care of the rest.  Will it cut back illegal immigration 100%?   Of course not but certainly would put a huge dent in it.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Or we can just have a minority hunting day, you know a day where its legal to get rid of the fence jumping scum of the third world.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> *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.
> *
> Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.
> 
> SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.



You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier.  Neither their parents nor they are under our full  jurisdiction .   They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country.   No one will touch it?  That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one.  It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be.   Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

Go home pakies!
Go home wetbacks!
Go home *******!
Jews too!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
Click to expand...

Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.

But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.


----------



## ImGoing2Heaven

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers


----------



## Unkotare

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Or we can just have a minority hunting day....




People as stupid as you are a minority as well, so...


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> That is merely your opinion...




It is the established law of the land, oldgloryhole.


----------



## Unkotare

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers



They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.


----------



## Unkotare

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Go home pakies!
> Go home wetbacks!
> Go home *******!
> Jews too!




Go home, you stupid son of a bitch.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.
> 
> If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FALSE!
> 
> Of course it's important what Howard meant when he authored the 14th amendment.  What he meant is what the 14th amendment always has been > NO ANCHOR BABIES.
Click to expand...

Far more important was what the congress meant when they approved the bill and the states that ratified. it.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who need educating on this subject:
> 
> The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
Click to expand...

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:
> 
> *"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
> time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
> in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
> of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
> which it was passed."
> Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
> Complete Jefferson, p. 322.*
> 
> I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> How can you read the citizenship clause, *"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." * and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity?  The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws.  Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?
> 
> The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous.  The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense.  At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen.  Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens?  At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464)  What's the matter ?  Don't you believe him ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FALSE!
> 
> Of course it's important what Howard meant when he authored the 14th amendment.  What he meant is what the 14th amendment always has been > NO ANCHOR BABIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far more important was what the congress meant when they approved the bill and the states that ratified. it.
Click to expand...

They meant the same thing that Howard meant.  They all heard what he said, and they were all in agreement together.


----------



## protectionist

Flopper said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in _United States v. Wong Kim Ark_ (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in _Plyler v. Doe_ (1982).
> 
> In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., W_eber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al _(1972)).
> 
> The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
> 
> To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.


----------



## protectionist

Unkotare said:


> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.
Click to expand...

Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been.  Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.


----------



## protectionist

Unkotare said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If their parents are illegal aliens they just aren't entitled to our citizenship by birth.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law says otherwise, oldgloryhole.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, and it never has, since 1866.  So says the author of the 14th amendment.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Absolutely false.*  The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so.  It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.
> 
> Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
> He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.
> 
> Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.
Click to expand...


Howard's intent is clearly the language of 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 of the States wherein they reside.”*

Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been.  Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.
Click to expand...


All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.

They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.

Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant.


----------



## Syriusly

ImGoing2Heaven said:


> Go home pakies!
> Go home wetbacks!
> Go home *******!
> Jews too!



This guy is just a troll.

I don't put anyone on ignore- but not going to respond anymore to this 13 year olds masturbatory posts.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> *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.
> *
> Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.
> 
> SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier.  Neither their parents nor they are under our full  jurisdiction .   They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country.   No one will touch it?  That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one.  It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be.   Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?
Click to expand...


According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States

_

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
_


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> *Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.
> 
> Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly
> 
> Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Howard's intent is clearly the language of 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 of the States wherein they reside.”*
> 
> Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?
Click to expand...


The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention.  Everyone knew what Howard intended.


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been.  Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.
> 
> They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.
> 
> Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

FALSE! It is 100% relevant. And your notion that the children of diplomats should not be citizens, but, at the same time, it's perfectly OK for some fence jumper's kid to be a citizen is laughable.

And I don't state an _"interpretation of Howard's intent".  _There is no_ "interpretation"._  His intent is a quote and a historical FACT.


----------



## Unkotare

Another troll ^^^


----------



## protectionist

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> *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.
> *
> Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.
> 
> SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier.  Neither their parents nor they are under our full  jurisdiction .   They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country.   No one will touch it?  That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one.  It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be.   Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
> _
Click to expand...

This is against the intent of the founding fathers of the 14th amendment,. and thus belongs in the trash can.


----------



## protectionist

Unkotare said:


> Another troll ^^^


Can't think of anything to say, huh ? Maybe you'd do better in a thread about bubble gum.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Howard's intent is clearly the language of 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 of the States wherein they reside.”*
> 
> Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention.  Everyone knew what Howard intended.
Click to expand...


You are babbling and have no way of proving your statement.


----------



## Unkotare

This troll ^^^ belongs in the trash can.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, it is not and you can't prove it, protectionist.

I already posted above where you mangled the 14th.


----------



## JakeStarkey

protectionist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another troll ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Can't think of anything to say, huh ? Maybe you'd do better in a thread about bubble gum.
Click to expand...

You are a troll, no way around it.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Howard's intent is clearly the language of 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 of the States wherein they reside.”*
> 
> Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention.  Everyone knew what Howard intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are babbling and have no way of proving your statement.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that Howard didn't say these words ?  The words don't need proof. The speak for themselves.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another troll ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Can't think of anything to say, huh ? Maybe you'd do better in a thread about bubble gum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll, no way around it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger, right Mr. incompetent poster ?  No way around it.  And stop stealing my emoticoms.  You're the one being laughed at right now.


----------



## protectionist

JakeStarkey said:


> No, it is not and you can't prove it, protectionist.
> 
> I already posted above where you mangled the 14th.


I did nothing to the 14th other than present truth, which you seek to distort.


----------



## protectionist

DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!  Which we all know includes anchor babies.  This deportation should be retroactive to 1959, when illegal immigration was obliterated from Operation Wetback.  The new mass deportation program should be called Operation Wetback II.


----------



## Flopper

Unkotare said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is merely your opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the established law of the land, oldgloryhole.
Click to expand...

Regarding intent, Justice Scalia had this to say:
"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended."


Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> *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.
> *
> Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.
> 
> SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier.  Neither their parents nor they are under our full  jurisdiction .   They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country.   No one will touch it?  That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one.  It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be.   Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?
Click to expand...

If they aren't under our jurisdiction, then it's all a mute point because they can't be charged with with any crime.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.
> 
> But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.
Click to expand...


No such thing as an "undocumented " immigrant. They are illegal aliens according to immigration law.    Just because they haven't been caught and prosecuted yet doesn't change the fact that they are illegal aliens.    And no, their kids are not entitled to our birthright citizenship according to the writers of the 14th.    Their parent's status is very relevant because of the qualifier of "and' subject to our jurisdiction.   They are only subject to obeying our laws simply by being on our soil.   Nothing more.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read,* “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”*?  Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.
> 
> 14th Amendment Site
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >
> 
> _*"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."*_
> 
> Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Howard's intent is clearly the language of 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 of the States wherein they reside.”*
> 
> Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention.  Everyone knew what Howard intended.
Click to expand...


Yet the plain language of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that children of foreigners would become citizens.

It was clear to the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

And it is clear to the Supreme Court that the children of foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- as in Plyler v. Doe.


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImGoing2Heaven said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been.  Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.
> 
> They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.
> 
> Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE! It is 100% relevant. And your notion that the children of diplomats should not be citizens, but, at the same time, it's perfectly OK for some fence jumper's kid to be a citizen is laughable.
> 
> And I don't state an _"interpretation of Howard's intent".  _There is no_ "interpretation"._  His intent is a quote and a historical FACT.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation and yours alone.

Which is why as I have pointed out that 

All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.

They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.

Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant


----------



## Syriusly

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> *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.
> *
> Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.
> 
> SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier.  Neither their parents nor they are under our full  jurisdiction .   They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country.   No one will touch it?  That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one.  It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be.   Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
> _
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is against the intent of the founding fathers of the 14th amendment,. and thus belongs in the trash can.
Click to expand...


Well I am sure that the Supreme Court will be amused to find that you believe your legal understanding of the 14th Amendment is superior to theirs.

The difference is that their decision is actually legally binding. Yours is just your own babbling.

Everyone born in the jurisdiction of the united States is a citizen- and the Supreme Court has said illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.
_(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216._


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.
> 
> But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing as an "undocumented " immigrant. They are illegal aliens according to immigration law.    Just because they haven't been caught and prosecuted yet doesn't change the fact that they are illegal aliens.    And no, their kids are not entitled to our birthright citizenship according to the writers of the 14th.    Their parent's status is very relevant because of the qualifier of "and' subject to our jurisdiction.   They are only subject to obeying our laws simply by being on our soil.   Nothing more.
Click to expand...


Watch out Jones! 

You keep disagreeing with OldGlory- he will ignore you!

Stones the size of peas.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT XIV
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> *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.
> *
> Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.
> 
> SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier.  Neither their parents nor they are under our full  jurisdiction .   They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country.   No one will touch it?  That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one.  It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be.   Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court they are under the jurisdiction of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
> _
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is against the intent of the founding fathers of the 14th amendment,. and thus belongs in the trash can.
Click to expand...

Amazing, how conservatives always cry, "It wasn't their intent" when legislation doesn't say what they want it to say.  However, in regard to intent, Congress understood clearly what they were voting for, even if they did not particularly like it. Virtually all supporters of the amendment agreed that it would protect the “civil rights” of blacks and everyone. President Johnson and several senators stated that the legislation would bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners who were not diplomats.


----------



## Flopper

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "*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.*"  During the Senate debate, 3 senators including  Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats).  Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.
> 
> Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Howard's intent is clearly the language of 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 of the States wherein they reside.”*
> 
> Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of allowing kids of foreigners to become citizens was thought to be so absurd, that it didn't even require mention.  Everyone knew what Howard intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are babbling and have no way of proving your statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Howard didn't say these words ?  The words don't need proof. The speak for themselves.
Click to expand...


Yes, Howard's words due speak for themselves when he defined the meaning of jurisdiction before the Senate.

Howard stated in the Senate (1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2895) “The word jurisdiction meant the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now".  This pretty well shoots down the interpretation of the citizenship clause to mean anything other than all children born of foreign parents are citizens with the exception of foreign diplomats, the same as children born of US citizens.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.
> 
> But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing as an "undocumented " immigrant. They are illegal aliens according to immigration law.    Just because they haven't been caught and prosecuted yet doesn't change the fact that they are illegal aliens.    And no, their kids are not entitled to our birthright citizenship according to the writers of the 14th.    Their parent's status is very relevant because of the qualifier of "and' subject to our jurisdiction.   They are only subject to obeying our laws simply by being on our soil.   Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch out Jones!
> 
> You keep disagreeing with OldGlory- he will ignore you!
> 
> Stones the size of peas.
Click to expand...

It is both an honor and privileged to be ignored by someone who can't carry on debate and just states their opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.


----------



## Syriusly

Flopper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.
> 
> But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing as an "undocumented " immigrant. They are illegal aliens according to immigration law.    Just because they haven't been caught and prosecuted yet doesn't change the fact that they are illegal aliens.    And no, their kids are not entitled to our birthright citizenship according to the writers of the 14th.    Their parent's status is very relevant because of the qualifier of "and' subject to our jurisdiction.   They are only subject to obeying our laws simply by being on our soil.   Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch out Jones!
> 
> You keep disagreeing with OldGlory- he will ignore you!
> 
> Stones the size of peas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is both an honor and privileged to be ignored by someone who can't carry on debate and just states their opinion.
Click to expand...


I have never understood the point of telling people you are going to ignore them.

When I want to ignore someone- I just ignore them.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.



Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally?   Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey

oldglory1, your interp is not that of the law.

Go do something meaningful, please.


----------



## 1751_Texan

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
Click to expand...


You want all parents of newborns to go to court to prove their immigration status...how would that even work? 

That is the ridiculousness in not thinking things through. There would have to be a law forcing parents to go court the prove their citizenship...BRILLIANT. 

Keep on thinking of those gems.


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want all parents of newborns to go to court to prove their immigration status...how would that even work?
> 
> That is the ridiculousness in not thinking things through. There would have to be a law forcing parents to go court the prove their citizenship...BRILLIANT.
> 
> Keep on thinking of those gems.
Click to expand...


No, upon the birth of a newborn the parents should be prepared to prove their status in this country in order for the hospital to issue a birth certificate that either makes them U.S. citizens or a birth certificate that merely states they were born in their state and are non-citizens.  The parents would have 9 months notification of this to prepare to bring in either a birth certificate that denotes they are citizens of this country or a legal residency card.   If the parents can't /won't produce either than the above should apply.   You are making a mountain out of a molehill and for the obvious reasons.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> oldglory1, your interp is not that of the law.
> 
> Go do something meaningful, please.



It's not "my" interpretation it is the writer's intent.  I am doing something meaningful.   I am fighting for legislation to change this travesty.   What are you doing other than promoting making a mockery out of our citizenship and turning a blind eye to what it is costing this country?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.

There is no dispute.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.
> 
> There is no dispute.



Where did it prove that?   They were a part of the exceptions.  Right, there is


JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.
> 
> There is no dispute.



Where did it prove that?  They were a part of the exceptions.  Right, there is no dispute.  The writer's of 14th didn't intend for children of illegal aliens to gain birthright citizenship.    It excluded foreigners and aliens that are not subject to our full jurisdiction.  Everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but that isn't full jurisdiction.  Therefore the qualifying word of "and" subject to our jurisdiction.   If everyone were automatically subject to our jurisdiction (sans our laws) there would have been no need for that qualifying word.

Ok, I'll ask again.   Since we disagree on the meaning of the 14th let's set that aside.   Are you prepared to join the movement to end this travesty which is costing us billions of tax dollars and making a mockery out of citizenship via illegal immigration?   After all, there already has been several Amendments to our original Constitution (even though that isn't what is needed in this case).   If not, what are your reasons then?   If you can't give a viable reason then off to the dust bin you go with the rest of the anti-Americans in here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Section 1. *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.

====

Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.


----------



## Flopper

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no _"their citizenship"_ as you call it, and they are not_ "citizen children"._  They are *illegal aliens*, just like their parents.  And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border.  It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't.  If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth.   They are citizens of their parent's country.    Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify.   There are legal aliens and illegal aliens.   Learn to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want all parents of newborns to go to court to prove their immigration status...how would that even work?
> 
> That is the ridiculousness in not thinking things through. There would have to be a law forcing parents to go court the prove their citizenship...BRILLIANT.
> 
> Keep on thinking of those gems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, upon the birth of a newborn the parents should be prepared to prove their status in this country in order for the hospital to issue a birth certificate that either makes them U.S. citizens or a birth certificate that merely states they were born in their state and are non-citizens.  The parents would have 9 months notification of this to prepare to bring in either a birth certificate that denotes they are citizens of this country or a legal residency card.   If the parents can't /won't produce either than the above should apply.   You are making a mountain out of a molehill and for the obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Those molehills would soon become mountains.

If the court ruled that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens, then congress would have to pass legislation laying down the rules for birthright citizenship, one parent a citizen, two parents, one parent a citizen and one legal resident, etc.  The court can not make those decisions.  In addition congress would have to revisit a number of immigration laws based based on the 14th amendment citizenship clause plus some civil rights legislation.  States would have to revisit a number laws such as state citizenship laws and changes to birth certificate laws to include citizenship and there is no guarantee that all states would make those changes.

Children born of legal residents in the US would no longer be citizens so congress would have to decide on their status.

Then there's the problem of children of unknown parentage, parents who fail to produce proof of citizenship, and common law marriages.

However, the biggest mole hill would be the increase in the number of undocumented immigrants.  A study by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, observes that an end to birthright citizenship would increase the illegal immigration population, not reduce it, leading to “the establishment of a permanent class of undocumented workers.” The study predicts that the number of unauthorized immigrants could swell from 11 million to between 16 and 24 million by 2050, depending on how restrictive new laws would be.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Section 1. *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.
> 
> ====
> 
> Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.



It' not about my dissent.   You posted it right there.  "AND" subject to the jurisdiction.  Can't you read?   I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply.   I have no choice  but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars.  Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders.  Bye, bye.


----------



## JakeStarkey

oldglory1, I accept the status quo, I speak decent Spanish (I grew up in a Mexican-Anglo community in San Diego County, CA) for an Anglo, and your cause is wrongfooted in law, culture, and politics.


----------



## 1751_Texan

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1. *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.
> 
> ====
> 
> Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It' not about my dissent.   You posted it right there.  "AND" subject to the jurisdiction.  Can't you read?   I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply.   I have no choice  but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars.  Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders.  Bye, bye.
Click to expand...


All persons born on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US. Every person in the US... other than a diplomat is under jurisdiction of the US and the US Constitution. Name one person in the US right now that is not under under its Jurisdiction?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thus, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . *are citizens*."  As Scalia says, he looks at the text, not the intent.


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1. *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.
> 
> ====
> 
> Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It' not about my dissent.   You posted it right there.  "AND" subject to the jurisdiction.  Can't you read?   I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply.   I have no choice  but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars.  Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders.  Bye, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All persons born on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US. Every person in the US... other than a diplomat is under jurisdiction of the US and the US Constitution. Name one person in the US right now that is not under under its Jurisdiction?
Click to expand...


Nope, they only have to obey our laws while here.   They are not under our jurisdiction in any other way.   Illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction they are subject to their own countries full jurisdiction.

So how about we move forward and agree to disagree and seek change  to our  birthright citizenship so that those who have violated our immigration laws and are tapping into our tax coffers because of giving birth on our soil can no longer do that?   Let's put some respect into our citizenship.  Are you up for?   If not, why?    Last chance before you go into the dust bin with the rest who put illegal aliens and their kids above the national interests.


----------



## Flopper

JakeStarkey said:


> Thus, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . *are citizens*."  As Scalial says, he looks at the text, not the intent.


Despite all the hoopla about original intent, that's what most judges do when it comes to judicial review.

Original intent is always nebulous and uncertain in reviewing acts of congress because you must consider the views of a number of people which may represent contrasting opinions.  In the case of the 14th Amendment, Howard explained that the citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats.  In Senate debates the Senator from California stated he believed it would apply to children born of foreigners in United States and he would vote for the amendment.

As Scalial pointed out, it is text that he looks at; that is original meaning. Intent is highly subjective; meaning of text is not.  One need only  consult dictionaries at the time of the legislation to determine meaning.  This leaves little room for argument.

The prevailing definition in 18th century of jurisdiction of the United States is precisely what it is today.  If congress really intended to exclude children of all foreigners, not just diplomats, they would have said so and not used the word jurisdiction.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/ates.


----------



## Herodotus

Howard never said citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats.  The quote that is misinterpreted over and over by anti-immigration revisionists said it would exclude people who were born foreigners or aliens without stating who such persons were other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. 

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigner, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

It nowhere says children of foreigners were foreigners or aliens.   Of course, the persons who try to perpetuate this lie ignore Howard's clearer statements on the issue such as:

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black.  Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

Hard to misinterpret such clear statements including that jus soli was the universal rule.  If one wants to debate this, please stop spreading lies and address what Howard actually said.


----------



## Herodotus

Flopper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prevailing definition in  the18 century of jurisdiction of the United States is precisely what it is today.  If congress really intended to exclude children of all foreigners, not just diplomats, they would have said so and not used the word jurisdiction.
> 
> http://webstersdictionary1828.com/ates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was subject to the jurisdiction of a nation was in every book on public law in the 19th century.  In fact, most books cited Justice Marshall on the issue in one of the most famous cases our court has decided on public law which only excluded persons subject to the privilege of extraterritoriality (i.e., ambassadors).  For example:
> 
> “From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that "the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.' This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.”  George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 54-55 (1884)(quoting Justice Marshall).
> 
> "[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886
> 
> “All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.”  Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885).
> 
> “One of the fundamental rules of international law is that an independent State has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property within its boundaries.”  Freedman Snow, International Law, pg. 31 (1898).
> 
> “Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).
> 
> “All persons found within the limits of a Government (unless specially excepted by the law of nations), whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may, or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.”  Sir Sherston Baker, First Steps in International Law: Prepared for the Use of Students, pg. 79 (1899)
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Herodotus said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prevailing definition in  the18 century of jurisdiction of the United States is precisely what it is today.  If congress really intended to exclude children of all foreigners, not just diplomats, they would have said so and not used the word jurisdiction.
> 
> http://webstersdictionary1828.com/ates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was subject to the jurisdiction of a nation was in every book on public law in the 19th century.  In fact, most books cited Justice Marshall on the issue in one of the most famous cases our court has decided on public law which only excluded persons subject to the privilege of extraterritoriality (i.e., ambassadors).  For example:
> 
> “From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that "the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.' This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.”  George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 54-55 (1884)(quoting Justice Marshall).
> 
> "[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886
> 
> “All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.”  Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885).
> 
> “One of the fundamental rules of international law is that an independent State has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property within its boundaries.”  Freedman Snow, International Law, pg. 31 (1898).
> 
> “Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).
> 
> “All persons found within the limits of a Government (unless specially excepted by the law of nations), whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may, or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.”  Sir Sherston Baker, First Steps in International Law: Prepared for the Use of Students, pg. 79 (1899)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I suggest gently but firmly whoever screwed up the quote function above get is straight: right quick.


----------



## Oldglory1

Herodotus said:


> Howard never said citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats.  The quote that is misinterpreted over and over by anti-immigration revisionists said it would exclude people who were born foreigners or aliens without stating who such persons were other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
> 
> "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigner, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
> 
> It nowhere says children of foreigners were foreigners or aliens.   Of course, the persons who try to perpetuate this lie ignore Howard's clearer statements on the issue such as:
> 
> “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black.  Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).
> 
> "A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).
> 
> Hard to misinterpret such clear statements including that jus soli was the universal rule.  If one wants to debate this, please stop spreading lies and address what Howard actually said.



Here, chomp on this for awhile.   There are no lies being spread.  It is you who is lying about what Howard actually said.

Birthright Citizenship in the United States A Global Comparison Center for Immigration Studies


----------



## JakeStarkey

Get over it, nativists.

This will not change.


----------



## Herodotus

Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens.  Give us the quote.  The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English.  Lying about it does not help your argument.  I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule.  He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.   Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Red herring.  Doesn't matter.  Scalia and the rest already have read the text (not supposed intent) and concluded there will never be a need to review a case.


----------



## 1751_Texan

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1. *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.
> 
> ====
> 
> Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It' not about my dissent.   You posted it right there.  "AND" subject to the jurisdiction.  Can't you read?   I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply.   I have no choice  but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars.  Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders.  Bye, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All persons born on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US. Every person in the US... other than a diplomat is under jurisdiction of the US and the US Constitution. Name one person in the US right now that is not under under its Jurisdiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nope, they only have to obey our laws while here.   They are not under our jurisdiction in any other way.   Illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction they are subject to their own countries full jurisdiction.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Seems you are confusing "Our Jurisdiction"[what ever your meaning] and Under the Jurisdiction of the US Constitution. "Our Jurisdiction" is meaningless.


----------



## 1751_Texan

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.
> 
> There is no dispute.


OG1 is trying to argue that since illegal aliens are here illegally, then the US Constitution does not apply to them. 

Seems the Constitution pertains to them in every aspect but birth of a child.


----------



## Herodotus

1751_Texan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.
> 
> There is no dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> OG1 is trying to argue that since illegal aliens are here illegally, then the US Constitution does not apply to them.
> 
> Seems the Constitution pertains to them in every aspect but birth of a child.
Click to expand...


Show a citation that states someone here illegally is not subject to our jurisdiction.  Show a quote from a treatise on public international law.  Such does not exist.  The Supreme Court in The Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116 (1812) clearly stated who was and who was not subject o our jurisdiction.  As I pointed out above, no treatise on public international law disagrees with such case.   All persons in the US are fully subject to its jurisdiction (other than ambassadors and similar persons) and no foreign nation has any jurisdiction over any persons in the US.  This is international law 101.  Stating otherwise is just misstating basic law any first year law student should know. 

“[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, _Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, _pg. 202 (1886)

“To be resident within the territory of a Nation is to be subject to its Jurisdiction; but Nations, from considerations of mutual Comity, do not apply the same Laws in all matters to persons who are only temporarily resident, as to persons who are permanently resident within its territory."  Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations pg. 214 (1861).

“All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.”  Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885)


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of the above matters.


----------



## Oldglory1

Herodotus said:


> Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens.  Give us the quote.  The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English.  Lying about it does not help your argument.  I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule.  He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.   Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.



And sorry that you can't comprehend the article that I posted. Into the dust bin you go with the rest of the pro-illegal sympathizers in here.


----------



## Oldglory1

1751_Texan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.
> 
> There is no dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> OG1 is trying to argue that since illegal aliens are here illegally, then the US Constitution does not apply to them.
> 
> Seems the Constitution pertains to them in every aspect but birth of a child.
Click to expand...


The Constitution only applies to them in a very limited manner.   "We" the people" is about our citizens not foreigners.   Again, illegal aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction which is required for their kids to gain birthright citizenship.    Are you ready to join the movement to clarify that through the SC?   If not, then you are a pro-illegal sympathizer and you will go into my dust bin with the others in there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OG1, you argument has been defeated long ago.

That you deny it means nothing.  Trot along.


----------



## Herodotus

Oldglory1 said:


> Herodotus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens.  Give us the quote.  The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English.  Lying about it does not help your argument.  I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule.  He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.   Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sorry that you can't comprehend the article that I posted. Into the dust bin you go with the rest of the pro-illegal sympathizers in here.
Click to expand...


So apparently you can't show actual language that Howard said children of aliens were not citizens because he never said that.   Why do you not address his much clearer quotes saying you are wrong such as

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black.  Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

What do you not understand about this?   You do know that Congress specifically discussed whether children of chlnese aliens would be made citizens and nobody argued that they would be excluded.   Why not look at the quotes directly addressing the issue of you are interested in the original intent.


----------



## Herodotus

JakeStarkey said:


> OG1, you argument has been defeated long ago.
> 
> That you deny it means nothing.  Trot along.



Yes, such argument was made and rejected in Wong Kim Ark more than a century ago.  The Court stated exactly who was not subject to our jurisdiction pointing out the Supreme Court had already addressed such issue.   Illegal aliens simply would not be excluded under the Court's definition.   OG1 is free to ask the Supreme Court to revisit the issue but saying illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction is simply wrong as a matter of basic international law and hence unlikely to get the court's attention.   And the amendment does not say "full jurisdiction," but, even if it did, as shown by the citations I posted above, they are fully subject to our jurisdiction under international law.   The "partial jurisdiction" stuff was made up by people trying to gut the amendment after republicans lost power.  It has no basis in actual law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OG1, read the above and pray about it, please.


----------



## Herodotus

OG1.   Ok, I read the article you posted.   Simply restates all the arguments rejected by the Court in WKA and have been resurrected by people who want to end birthright citizenship with respect to illegal aliens.  There are numerous modern law reviews again debunking these arguments again (I recommend James Ho and Professor Epps). While riddled with errors, the biggest problem with your article is that it cherry picks a few quotes, mostly out of context, from the debates that might support their position and expect one will be too lazy to see that 98% of the statement made by members of 39th Congress on the subject unambiguously support birthright citizenship.  For example they quote Trumbull talking about Indians born in indian nations we considered foreign countries as owing allegiance to somebody else.   Trumbull made clear if Indians were born in the indian nation they owed allegiance to the indian nation and if they were born outside such nations but in the US, they owed allegiance to the US even though the parents would still be aliens.  Thus, in context, his quote is perfectly consistent with the common law.   In fact, Trumbull said we had adopted the English common law rule and repeatedly said children of Chinese aliens were citizens.  Suggesting Trumbull thought we adopted anything other than jus soli is simply wrong as it ignores all his clear quotes on the issue.   Go look at the Congressional Record if you really want to know what they adopted as I think you will be surprised what you will find.    

"the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father." Senator Trumbull, Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)

"Undoubtably." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen's question whether the Civil Rights Act will make native-born children of Chinese aliens citizens).

"Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen.  It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons."Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)


----------



## Flopper

Herodotus said:


> Howard never said citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats.  The quote that is misinterpreted over and over by anti-immigration revisionists said it would exclude people who were born foreigners or aliens without stating who such persons were other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
> 
> "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigner, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
> 
> It nowhere says children of foreigners were foreigners or aliens.   Of course, the persons who try to perpetuate this lie ignore Howard's clearer statements on the issue such as:
> 
> “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black.  Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).
> 
> "A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).
> 
> Hard to misinterpret such clear statements including that jus soli was the universal rule.  If one wants to debate this, please stop spreading lies and address what Howard actually said.


If and when SCOTUS reviews the citizenship clause, there will be two things of paramount importance that will be considered.

The citizenship clause that Howard proposed and was approved by Congress and ratified by the states.* "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."*
The accepted meaning of the term *"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"* in the 1800's.  The definitions of "jurisdiction" and "thereof" is well documented in dictionaries of that day. The phrase means just what it means today, subject to the laws (jurisdiction) of the United States.   Howard's assurance that his citizenship clause would not include the children born in the US of foreigners and John Conness, the Senator from California's assurance that they would be,  are both irrelevant.  Howard was arguing for his citizenship clause and was assuring congress that it meant these children would not become citizens.  Conness was arguing that they would, wanting the clause to made more restrictive.


----------



## Herodotus

You re right that the text will be paramount and there is no dispute what those words meant.  However, you are simply wrong to say Howard said children of aliens were excluded.   The quote that is cited simply does not say that and Howards later statements make clear that was not his position.  Even the article posted by OG1 points out that Howard quote is ambiguous and capable of several interpretations but it nowhere talks of children of foreigners or aliens.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally?   Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.
Click to expand...


Actually it is.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally?   Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.
Click to expand...


Everyone born in the jurisdiction of the united States is a citizen- and the Supreme Court has said illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

_(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction.* Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. *Pp. 210-216._


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1. *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.
> 
> ====
> 
> Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It' not about my dissent.   You posted it right there.  "AND" subject to the jurisdiction.  Can't you read?   I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply.   I have no choice  but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars.  Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders.  Bye, bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All persons born on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US. Every person in the US... other than a diplomat is under jurisdiction of the US and the US Constitution. Name one person in the US right now that is not under under its Jurisdiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they only have to obey our laws while here.   They are not under our jurisdiction in any other way.   Illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction they are subject to their own countries full jurisdiction..
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has definitively said otherwise

Everyone born in the jurisdiction of the united States is a citizen- and the Supreme Court has said illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.
_(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216._

But you won't read this.

Because you don't want to see opinions that disagree with your own.


----------



## Syriusly

Oldglory1 said:


> Ok, I'll ask again.   Since we disagree on the meaning of the 14th let's set that aside.   Are you prepared to join the movement to end this travesty which is costing us billions of tax dollars and making a mockery out of citizenship via illegal immigration?   After all, there already has been several Amendments to our original Constitution (even though that isn't what is needed in this case).   If not, what are your reasons then?   If you can't give a viable reason then off to the dust bin you go with the rest of the anti-Americans in here.



Oldglory keeps arguing about his bizarre interpretation of jurisidiction- and then tells everyone- "lets stop talking about this and talk about what I want to- and if you don't- you are anti-American'.

Nothing is more un-American than wanting to treat American citizens unfairly.

And yes- anyone born in the United States is an American citizen.


----------



## Herodotus

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally?   Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.
Click to expand...


Since you are fond of citing Senator Howard (though inaccurately), why not ask him.   When introducing the relevant citizenship language from the committe he said it was simply declaratory of what the law already was.   What did he way the law already was:

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws....."  Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

Pretty clear and exactly what Wong Kim Ark said it meant.   Have you found any legal treatise anywhere that says legal or illegal aliens are not fully subject to our jurisdiction.   I think not.  Any treatise saying an illegal aliens is subject to a foreign jurisdiction.  Again, I think not.   If you want to make statements of what the law is, you need to back them up to be taken seriously.


----------



## Flopper

Herodotus said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herodotus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens.  Give us the quote.  The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English.  Lying about it does not help your argument.  I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule.  He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.   Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sorry that you can't comprehend the article that I posted. Into the dust bin you go with the rest of the pro-illegal sympathizers in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So apparently you can't show actual language that Howard said children of aliens were not citizens because he never said that.   Why do you not address his much clearer quotes saying you are wrong such as
> 
> “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black.  Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).
> 
> What do you not understand about this?   You do know that Congress specifically discussed whether children of chlnese aliens would be made citizens and nobody argued that they would be excluded.   Why not look at the quotes directly addressing the issue of you are interested in the original intent.
Click to expand...




Herodotus said:


> You re right that the text will be paramount and there is no dispute what those words meant.  However, you are simply wrong to say Howard said children of aliens were excluded.   The quote that is cited simply does not say that and Howards later statements make clear that was not his position.  Even the article posted by OG1 points out that Howard quote is ambiguous and capable of several interpretations but it nowhere talks of children of foreigners or aliens.


Are you referring to the quote highlighted below?  If so, you're absolutely correct.  I misread it as did a number of other people.  All Howard is saying is that the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers that are born in the US are exclude, not the children of foreigners.

I think the problem occurs because people are reading the phrase, "*who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors..." *are neglecting the fact that the 2nd pronoun, who is referring to foreigner or aliens.

Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. *This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.* It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.


----------



## Herodotus

I would add that focusing so much on Howard doesn't make sense either.  He didn't write the language.  He reported it out of Committee.   The language appeared in a newspaper months earlier and was brought to the Committee by an outsider.   Accordingly, Howard's opinion should have no more weight than anyone else who spoke on the issue in Congress.

Finally, how are children of illegal aliens different than the multitude of slaves who were born to parents brought here illegally.  Importing slaves had been illegal for a half century prior to the Amendment, but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period.   Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally.   No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.


----------



## Syriusly

Herodotus said:


> I would add that focusing so much on Howard doesn't make sense either.  He didn't write the language.  He reported it out of Committee.   The language appeared in a newspaper months earlier and was brought to the Committee by an outsider.   Accordingly, Howard's opinion should have no more weight than anyone else who spoke on the issue in Congress.
> 
> Finally, how are children of illegal aliens different than the multitude of slaves who were born to parents brought here illegally.  Importing slaves had been illegal for a half century prior to the Amendment, but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period.   Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally.   No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.



That is a fascinating point- and one I had not considered:

*but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period.  Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally.  No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.*
*
Great point- thanks for pointing that out- because yes- there were slaves that were illegally smuggled into the United States prior to emancipation- and yes- technically they would be 'illegal aliens'. *


----------



## Flopper

Syriusly said:


> Herodotus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that focusing so much on Howard doesn't make sense either.  He didn't write the language.  He reported it out of Committee.   The language appeared in a newspaper months earlier and was brought to the Committee by an outsider.   Accordingly, Howard's opinion should have no more weight than anyone else who spoke on the issue in Congress.
> 
> Finally, how are children of illegal aliens different than the multitude of slaves who were born to parents brought here illegally.  Importing slaves had been illegal for a half century prior to the Amendment, but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period.   Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally.   No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fascinating point- and one I had not considered:
> 
> *but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period.  Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally.  No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.
> 
> Great point- thanks for pointing that out- because yes- there were slaves that were illegally smuggled into the United States prior to emancipation- and yes- technically they would be 'illegal aliens'. *
Click to expand...

Citizenship in first half of the 19th century had little resemblance to citizenship today.  There were few government records kept on who entered the country.  You usually became a US citizen by becoming a citizen of a state but the rules varied between states.  There were few benefits of being a citizens and few obligations. Thus, many people who came to the states and territories never became citizens because there was little reason to do and no penalty for not doing so.  With the freeing of slaves, Indians living in US territories and states, immigration of the Chinese, and states changing citizenship laws, the question of who are citizens of the United States begged for a simple elegant answer.  The 14th amendment did just that.  If you were born in the US you were a US citizen.


----------



## Oldglory1

Good read.   The pro-illegals in here will just ignore it though.  

Birthright Citizenship -- A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment Fox News


----------



## Herodotus

Wow, fox news,  great source.  You can keep re-posting people making the same arguments that the Supreme Court rejected 115 years ago, but that will not change the law.  These arguments lost because they were not supported by the legislative history of the Amendment, were contrary to the plain language of the Amendment, were contrary to the international law of jurisdiction and were contrary to every could case in US history on who is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  I understand some people have agendas on illegal aliens and want to resurrect these old, rejected and discarded arguments, but such doesn't make these rejected arguments any better.  There are few areas of law where there is not some fringe group saying all the courts are wrong and they are right.   Such people are ignored until they can actually make a real legal argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

Cosmos said:


> I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?



What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?


----------



## Flopper

emilynghiem said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
> Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?
Click to expand...

Chinese are the largest ethnic group within Asian-Americans.  They have the lowest divorce rate of any racial group (3 percent), the lowest rate of teen-age pregnancy (6 percent), the highest median family income ($35,900) and the lowest rate of unemployment (3.5 percent). In addition Asian-American high school graduates had the highest college enrollment rate, at 92.2 percent, followed by white graduates (69.2 percent)  I don't see how more Chinese Americans are a liability, more likely they are an asset to America.

.Demographics of Asian Americans - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Syriusly

emilynghiem said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
> Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?
Click to expand...


Why are you asking us that question? 

What is the harm to you specifically?


----------



## Oldglory1

emilynghiem said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
> Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?
Click to expand...


That needs to stop also.   Re-interpreting the 14th on birthright citizenship as it was meant to be would do the trick.


----------



## Herodotus

The 39th congress and the next 2 or 3 Congresses discussed the issue of Chinese immigrants at length.  Some were worried about hordes of Chinese coming into the country.  The limitations discussed always related to people born in China.  No one suggested that the Amendment did not cover Chinese children born here.  One Senator opposed the Amendment specifically because he was told it covered children of Chinese aliens.   No one really thought about Chinese mothers flying in to have births here as such didn't happen in those days. 

However, there were some people at such time who wanted to exclude children of temporary residents.  Such was not the law prior to 1866 and such was rejected when brought up in the debates on the 14th Amendment.  Such exception could also not fall within the plain language of the amendment as all persons here temporarily are obviously subject to our jurisdiction.  

“[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.”  John Norton Pomeroy, _Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, _pg. 202 (1886);

“All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.”  Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885)

“Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).


----------



## Herodotus

Since you won't do your own research, from members of the 39th Congress:

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black.  Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

"I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States...The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside "near" the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States." Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the propositionto declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.” Senator Conness, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2890 (1866).

“This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law is now…..The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone - natural born and naturalized citizens." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

"The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the State.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1117 (1866).

"On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: 'Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1116 (1866).

"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

 “This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866).

“That amendment in its first clause is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. This had been previously declared by act of Congress, and it was so without any act of Congress. Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen.  It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons."Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)“The President also has an objection to making citizens of Chinese and Gypsies.  I am told that few Chinese are born in this country, and where the Gypsies are born I never know…… And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father." Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons's Veto), Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)

 "[t]he children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)  "

"Undoubtably." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen's question whether the Civil Rights Act will have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese aliens and Gypsies born in this country).

“It was believed by myself and many others that all native born persons since the abolition of slavery were citizens of the United States.  This was the opinion of Mr. Bates, the Attorney General during the Lincoln administration, the opinion adopted by his administration and acted upon since by all departments  of the Executive Government, including Secretary of state, which has issued passports to persons of color recognizing them as citizens.  It was the opinion expressed by Mr. Marcy when Secretary of State that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States not referring of course to slaves…”  Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1757 (1866)

"The Amendments to the Constitution now pending seek to make citizens of the United States of all men born in the country of lawful age...It makes citizens not only of the pet negro but also of the filthy Chinese." Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 3rd Session, 40th Congress pg. 1067 (1868).

“What I said then, I say now, that as far as the United States are concerned, all person born within the limits of the United States are to be considered as citizens, and that without reference to color or race….. Now, what does this bill propose? All born within the United States are to be considered citizens of the United States, and as such shall have in every State all the rights that belong to anybody else in the State as far as the particular subjects stated in the bill are concerned”  Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1780 (1866).

“and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States." Sen. Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2893 (1866).

"The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States.... Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President..." Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).


----------



## Herodotus

Here re some more:


"I assumed that by the amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, the slaves being made free became citizens entitled to all the rights, civil and political, of other American citizens. I maintained that if the offspring of a man from a foreign country became a citizen and entitled to vote, because a man happened to be born in America and was black, that did not disfranchise him." Mr. Yates, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1004 (1869)

"This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws, and Indians not taxed who owe a tribal allegiance, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Cook, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1124 (1866).

“If Congress possesses the power to adopt such a law, then all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, except Indians not taxed, of whatever race or color, are citizens of the United States, and entitled to full protection as such.  And all state Constitutions and State laws making any discrimination against negroes, mulattoes, Indians that are taxed, Chinamen or gypsies, on account of their color or race, are null and void.  Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 3215 (1866).

"It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, and not a slave, is a citizen or subject of such country, and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all privileges or citizens or subjects. ”  Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. pg. 182 of Appendix (1866)

"It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law." Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866).

“Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he who is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1776 (1866).

"The honorable Senator from Kentucky...forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship..." Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

 “Why, all the world knows, the most unlettered of our people understand, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of any nation, or naturalized under its laws, is, by virtue of those facts alone, a citizen of that country in the fullest and amplest sense of the term.” Rep. Kerr., Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 47 of appendix (1871).

"Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?" Rep. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

"As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary....What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?'' Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).

“We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

"The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the "natural-born" right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection." Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)(Rep. Bowen was a member of the 4-th Congress that passed the Expatriation Act.)


----------



## Herodotus

How many more quotes saying you are wrong would you like?


----------

