# The anchor baby myth



## johnwk

We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts. 


In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

*“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*. 


And why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares _“and subject to its jurisdiction”_ was intended to exclude from citizenship *“children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*?

The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:

*The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see*: *Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890* 


Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 
1st column halfway down

*“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”*

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: *“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”*


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: *“…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State. 

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”* …he then continues *“…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, 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.”*

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. 

JWK



* "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


----------



## DarkFury

*I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"The anchor baby myth"

True, it is a myth – there is no such thing as an 'anchor baby.'

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, regardless the condition or status of their parents.


----------



## BULLDOG

DarkFury said:


> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*




You  do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.


----------



## Sonny Clark

Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?


----------



## BULLDOG

Sonny Clark said:


> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?



There are enough fruitcakes in the house to try to make something out of it, but I suspect they wouldn't have any more success than they did with those more than 50 votes to end healthcare. Feel free to try though.


----------



## DarkFury

Sonny Clark said:


> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?


*People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*


----------



## BULLDOG

DarkFury said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> *People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*
Click to expand...



Great. Why don't you bring that up the next time you're relaxing with the members of the supreme court?


----------



## emilynghiem

johnwk said:


> We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.
> 
> 
> In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*.
> 
> 
> And why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares _“and subject to its jurisdiction”_ was intended to exclude from citizenship *“children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*?
> 
> The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
> 
> *The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see*: *Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890*
> 
> 
> Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)*
> 1st column halfway down
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”*
> 
> Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: *“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”*
> 
> 
> Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: *“…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
> 
> “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”* …he then continues *“…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, 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.”*
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> * "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)



Dear johnwk There is some deep rooted political BELIEF, almost religious, that a person is of the nation they are born in.

I ran across this as a religious belief in the most ironic way.

I was proposing that citizenship be based on commitment to uphold the laws and to accept financial and legal responsibility, especially if one commits "premeditated" violations of law, is convicted, and costs taxpayers and victims money for the abuses.

And that INSTEAD of trying to authorize govt to "take a life" or use capital punishment to answer for crimes,
punishment could be based on owing restitution PROPORTIONAL to the crimes and damages caused,
INCLUDING REVOKING CITIZENSHIP.

HOWEVER, when I presented this concept to different people to get feedback on it,
I found out at least one person who BELIEVED the state had MORE right to terminate life
than to terminate Citizenship. I thought it was the other way around!

So this idea of citizenship based on "birthright" is so embedded as a belief in people's natural thinking,
it is even seen as "inalienable" even next to the right to life that I thought required divine authority.

Apparently there are people who believe the state can make issues of life or death a statutory rule the govt can decide,
but when it comes to BIRTHRIGHT, no, not all citizens agree this is arbitrary to be decided by democratic process.
At least one person I met felt it was a divine right outside the jurisdiction of govt to change.

if you can BELIEVE that.

I found it hard to believe, given that terminating life is something often attributed to God as the only authority, not man.
And here, even citizenship is seen as divinely granted and not something the state can revoke. Really!


----------



## Sonny Clark

BULLDOG said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> *People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Why don't you bring that up the next time you're relaxing with the members of the supreme court?
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

DarkFury said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> *People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*
Click to expand...


Dear DarkFury
1. the parents who committed the violations should owe restitution,
and not get a free ride, the same as people who did NOT commit any violations

2. why not have ALL citizens earn privileges? So it isn't discriminating on the basis of being born here or not.
The price for citizenship is that you can't deliberately commit crimes, and run up the tab on taxpayers' expenses.
Every citizen signs for legal and financial responsibility for costs incurred; if unable to, then a sponsor must cosign who accepts legal and financial responsibility.
That means if you do commit premeditated violations, then you (or your sponsoring guardian or organization) agrees to pay restitution and any legal or adminstrative/prosecution costs so this doesn't burden the public/taxpayers.

That way whatever policy people follow, they pay for. Not someone else who didn't agree to pay extra
when someone else commits crimes and costs taxpayers more money than they can afford.

As a condition on citizenship, teach each legal citizen the COST of different actions; so if they commit that deliberately, they have signed agreement to pay the cost for that.  

Don't you think that might deter crime if people were held to pay the costs of their actions?

3. have each district sign agreements, and people who can't agree can live in different districts with different tax rates depending on the policy for cost of violations. The districts that succeed in reducing crime rates get to invest more taxes in school and community programs and business development. If some districts want to specialize in mentoring people in recovery from addiction, abuse or crime, then the resources can be invested in those programs. So the Democrats who WANT to fund people in poverty until they become independent can sponsor such programs and participants in district DESIGNED to educate and house and train such populations. Instead of prisons, build schools and manage these programs where there is a check on the budget. Not just making money off crime where the contracts go to big industry profits. The money saved means support for the programs to help more people. So if the rehab is successful, crime is cut and costs are reduced, then those same resources can pay for housing, health care, job training and other services for enrollees in the program. 

Earned Amnesty


----------



## DarkFury

emilynghiem said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> *People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear DarkFury
> 1. the parents who committed the violations should owe restitution,
> and not get a free ride, the same as people who did NOT commit any violations
> 
> 2. why not have ALL citizens earn privileges? So it isn't discriminating on the basis of being born here or not.
> The price for citizenship is that you can't deliberately commit crimes, and run up the tab on taxpayers' expenses.
> Every citizen signs for legal and financial responsibility for costs incurred; if unable to, then a sponsor must cosign who accepts legal and financial responsibility.
> That means if you do commit premeditated violations, then you (or your sponsoring guardian or organization) agrees to pay restitution and any legal or adminstrative/prosecution costs so this doesn't burden the public/taxpayers.
> 
> That way whatever policy people follow, they pay for. Not someone else who didn't agree to pay extra
> when someone else commits crimes and costs taxpayers more money than they can afford.
> 
> As a condition on citizenship, teach each legal citizen the COST of different actions; so if they commit that deliberately, they have signed agreement to pay the cost for that.
> 
> Don't you think that might deter crime if people were held to pay the costs of their actions?
> 
> 3. have each district sign agreements, and people who can't agree can live in different districts with different tax rates depending on the policy for cost of violations. The districts that succeed in reducing crime rates get to invest more taxes in school and community programs and business development. If some districts want to specialize in mentoring people in recovery from addiction, abuse or crime, then the resources can be invested in those programs. So the Democrats who WANT to fund people in poverty until they become independent can sponsor such programs and participants in district DESIGNED to educate and house and train such populations. Instead of prisons, build schools and manage these programs where there is a check on the budget. Not just making money off crime where the contracts go to big industry profits. The money saved means support for the programs to help more people. So if the rehab is successful, crime is cut and costs are reduced, then those same resources can pay for housing, health care, job training and other services for enrollees in the program.
> 
> Earned Amnesty
Click to expand...

*The babies go on welfare. 
The parents get to stay.
The parents get the checks.
It's fraud via a proxy.
They are using the proxy "child" to commit that fraud.
They have ALREADY demeaned that child to that of a tool.
DEPORT ONE AND ALL.*


----------



## my2¢

_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. _

Seems rather straightforward to me.  Doesn't even mention the need for a *well regulated* militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

johnwk said:


> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.



And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.


----------



## SwimExpert

johnwk said:


> We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.
> 
> 
> In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*.
> 
> 
> And why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares _“and subject to its jurisdiction”_ was intended to exclude from citizenship *“children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*?
> 
> The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
> 
> *The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see*: *Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890*
> 
> 
> Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)*
> 1st column halfway down
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”*
> 
> Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: *“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”*
> 
> 
> Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: *“…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
> 
> “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”* …he then continues *“…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, 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.”*
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> * "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)



You're an idiot.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Hugo Furst

my2¢ 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. _
> 
> Seems rather straightforward to me.  Doesn't even mention the need for a *well regulated* militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,




Don't need a "well regulated militia" for any other right either.


----------



## emilynghiem

DarkFury said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> *People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear DarkFury
> 1. the parents who committed the violations should owe restitution,
> and not get a free ride, the same as people who did NOT commit any violations
> 
> 2. why not have ALL citizens earn privileges? So it isn't discriminating on the basis of being born here or not.
> The price for citizenship is that you can't deliberately commit crimes, and run up the tab on taxpayers' expenses.
> Every citizen signs for legal and financial responsibility for costs incurred; if unable to, then a sponsor must cosign who accepts legal and financial responsibility.
> That means if you do commit premeditated violations, then you (or your sponsoring guardian or organization) agrees to pay restitution and any legal or adminstrative/prosecution costs so this doesn't burden the public/taxpayers.
> 
> That way whatever policy people follow, they pay for. Not someone else who didn't agree to pay extra
> when someone else commits crimes and costs taxpayers more money than they can afford.
> 
> As a condition on citizenship, teach each legal citizen the COST of different actions; so if they commit that deliberately, they have signed agreement to pay the cost for that.
> 
> Don't you think that might deter crime if people were held to pay the costs of their actions?
> 
> 3. have each district sign agreements, and people who can't agree can live in different districts with different tax rates depending on the policy for cost of violations. The districts that succeed in reducing crime rates get to invest more taxes in school and community programs and business development. If some districts want to specialize in mentoring people in recovery from addiction, abuse or crime, then the resources can be invested in those programs. So the Democrats who WANT to fund people in poverty until they become independent can sponsor such programs and participants in district DESIGNED to educate and house and train such populations. Instead of prisons, build schools and manage these programs where there is a check on the budget. Not just making money off crime where the contracts go to big industry profits. The money saved means support for the programs to help more people. So if the rehab is successful, crime is cut and costs are reduced, then those same resources can pay for housing, health care, job training and other services for enrollees in the program.
> 
> Earned Amnesty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The babies go on welfare.
> The parents get to stay.
> The parents get the checks.
> It's fraud via a proxy.
> They are using the proxy "child" to commit that fraud.
> They have ALREADY demeaned that child to that of a tool.
> DEPORT ONE AND ALL.*
Click to expand...


Deporting isn't enough to solve the problem.
Why not require restitution for the wrongs committed.

If you cannot work off the debt incurred, then you wait in line until you do.
while people who didn't commit crimes get to register first with no wait.

And if you fail to disclose any violations, that counts against your citizenship application,
such as tripling the time you will owe.

Why not make the credits required for citizenship 
PROPORTIONAL to the degree and length of time of the violations?

If all crime is treated the same, all deported, what motivation is there to fix anything?
If anything you do wrong is going to be counted the same,
how does that deter worse crimes?

If it is proportional, then the fewer violations the easier it is to apply.
And the more you lie about your record, that will cost more also.

That would reward people who don't cheat or lie, but follow the rules.

As for deportation, why reserve this only for immigrants.
Why not treat ALL citizens who commit violations with the same serious consequences
that if you refuse to work with authorities to pay restitution, then you also risk losing
citizenship and trading places with an applicant who is HAPPY to follow the laws and not commit any crimes.

So we would reward law-abiding behavior (regardless if born here or not)
and require restitution for violations (regardless if born here or not).

If people paid the price tag for their behavior, don't you think there would be
greater respect for following the law and enforcing common civic standards?


----------



## Wildman

how about to be U.S. citizen one must have a a minimum of 5 generations living here before them ?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> my2¢ 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. _
> 
> Seems rather straightforward to me.  Doesn't even mention the need for a *well regulated* militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need a "well regulated militia" for any other right either.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do: _To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;_


----------



## DarkFury

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
Click to expand...

*Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?
Are the parents NOT committing a felony?
Is that birth not the result of that felony?
Do the parents know beforehand it's a felony?

What you have is the result of a crime NOT something done legal.
It should be viewed as no different then entering this country with a fake passport.*


----------



## danielpalos

DarkFury said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?
> Are the parents NOT committing a felony?
> Is that birth not the result of that felony?
> Do the parents know beforehand it's a felony?
> 
> What you have is the result of a crime NOT something done legal.
> It should be viewed as no different then entering this country with a fake passport.*
Click to expand...

No one is committing a felony when "jaywalking" across an imaginary State line because it is only a misdemeanor.


----------



## SwimExpert

Wildman said:


> how about to be U.S. citizen one must have a a minimum of 5 generations living here before them ?



No.  Because that would be ridiculously stupid.


----------



## DarkFury

danielpalos said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?
> Are the parents NOT committing a felony?
> Is that birth not the result of that felony?
> Do the parents know beforehand it's a felony?
> 
> What you have is the result of a crime NOT something done legal.
> It should be viewed as no different then entering this country with a fake passport.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is committing a felony when "jaywalking" across an imaginary State line because it is only a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

*They don't give you FIVE YEARS in prison for "jay walking".

"a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of - (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c) Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both. - See more at: 8 U.S.C. 1325 US Code - Section 1325 Improper entry by alien*


----------



## IronFist

The US constitution is way too old and it was written by people who couldn't even predict the current state of things... Constitution must be rewritten so it could stay relevant...


----------



## Unkotare

DarkFury said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?...*
Click to expand...


Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. Giving birth is not.


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. Giving birth is not.
Click to expand...

*Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *


----------



## Unkotare

DarkFury said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. Giving birth is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *
Click to expand...



The law isn't predicated on your personal, spineless fear.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

DarkFury said:


> *Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *



How does one fake a birth?


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. Giving birth is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't predicated on your personal, spineless fear.
Click to expand...

*It's not a fear retard, it's based on the safety and security of a nation lil drooler.*


----------



## DarkFury

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does one fake a birth?
Click to expand...

*The birth itself is not fake but the placement is to enable fraud and fraud IS illegal. There IS a VERY simple cure. Birth child at adulthood could CHOOSE to become American but until 18 MUST stay with parents. 

*


----------



## Unkotare

DarkFury said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they are.  So I guess that makes you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. Giving birth is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't predicated on your personal, spineless fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's not a fear retard, ....*
Click to expand...



It obviously is, weakling. 

R-word Spread the Word to End the Word


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe NOT. Is it a LEGAL birth or a CRIMINAL act?...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing the border without authorization is illegal. Giving birth is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Willfully committing a fraud is and if that birth is a fraud or meant to commit a fraud *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The law isn't predicated on your personal, spineless fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's not a fear retard, ....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously is, weakling.
> 
> R-word Spread the Word to End the Word
Click to expand...

*No lil drooler no. When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country. Those lines are there for a reason. Do you lil drooler have ANY idea how Mexico treats ILLEGALS?

I would guess not but then I have been there SEVERAL times.
They beat them and rob them and rape them. And that's the cops!
The drug cartels just kill them or work them to death in labs.

*


----------



## SuperDemocrat

I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  There is nothing we can do about it until it is changed.   I'm sorry but anchor babies are here to stay.


----------



## DarkFury

SuperDemocrat said:


> I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  There is nothing we can do about it until it is changed.   I'm sorry but anchor babies are here to stay.


*I'm suggesting that until they reach the age of adulthood they STAY with the parents. Should THEY choose to become American at that point then by ALL means approve them.*


----------



## SuperDemocrat

IronFist said:


> The US constitution is way too old and it was written by people who couldn't even predict the current state of things... Constitution must be rewritten so it could stay relevant...



An amendment may be necessary to deal with it if we chose to.


----------



## Unkotare

DarkFury said:


> * When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....
> *




You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.


----------



## DarkFury

SuperDemocrat said:


> IronFist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US constitution is way too old and it was written by people who couldn't even predict the current state of things... Constitution must be rewritten so it could stay relevant...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An amendment may be necessary to deal with it if we chose to.
Click to expand...

*Agreed, nothing was written because it was never a problem before. Look at those folks sending their kids across the dessert alone. Nobody in their right mind does that and no other country puts up with that.*


----------



## Unkotare

SuperDemocrat said:


> I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  ....




The Supreme Court agrees with you.


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> * When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
Click to expand...

*No little retard we don't NOT when cities and people disobey the safety and security of others to clear their moral thoughts. Which plays to a second question.

What retards or tards think ANY social problem is cured by doing something illegal? Oh democrats!*


----------



## Unkotare

DarkFury said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> * When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No little retard we don't ....*
Click to expand...



We still have a country, coward. Weaklings like you are never part of the solution of problems. 


R-word Spread the Word to End the Word


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> * When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No little retard we don't ....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We still have a country, coward. Weaklings like you are never part of the solution of problems.
> 
> 
> R-word Spread the Word to End the Word
Click to expand...

*Do you have any idea how many Mexican Military incursions there were in Texas alone last year? NO, because you are a retard. So let's educate you retard.

THAT retard is the result of an unsecure border. *


----------



## Rambunctious

I can't wait for the day that the democrats that basically want our southern border wide open to realize that they have allowed millions of Latino Christians that despise gay marriage, legal pot and abortion... to enter our nation


----------



## Unkotare

R-word Spread the Word to End the Word


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> R-word Spread the Word to End the Word


*No.*


----------



## Unkotare

Rambunctious said:


> I can't wait for the day that the democrats that basically want our southern border wide open to realize that they have allowed millions of Latino Christians that despise gay marriage, legal pot and abortion... to enter our nation






You don't have to wait. Many Latino-Americans are already planning on voting against the democrats, or just staying home out of regard to the above issues.


----------



## Unkotare

DarkFury said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> R-word Spread the Word to End the Word
> 
> 
> 
> *No.*
Click to expand...





R-word Spread the Word to End the Word


----------



## DarkFury

Unkotare said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the day that the democrats that basically want our southern border wide open to realize that they have allowed millions of Latino Christians that despise gay marriage, legal pot and abortion... to enter our nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to wait. Many Latino-Americans are already planning on voting against the democrats, or just staying home out of regard to the above issues.
Click to expand...

*THIS half Mexican IS voting against Democrats AND Rinos.
Time to get rid of BOTH.*


----------



## Claudette

Sonny Clark said:


> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?



Yup. That amendment was added so that the children of ex slaves would be recognized as US citizens.

Its not longer needed and should either be removed or changed.

The US is the only country in the world that recognizes everyone born in the country as a citizen.

I'm surprised no one in Congress or in State Govt. has lobbied to have this changed.

Its a way for illegal aliens to suck off our social services. Once that child is recognized as American it opens that door.


----------



## johnwk

SwimExpert said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.
> 
> 
> In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*.
> 
> 
> And why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares _“and subject to its jurisdiction”_ was intended to exclude from citizenship *“children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“*?
> 
> The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:
> 
> *The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see*: *Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890*
> 
> 
> Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)*
> 1st column halfway down
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”*
> 
> Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: *“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”*
> 
> 
> Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: *“…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.
> 
> “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”* …he then continues *“…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, 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.”*
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> * "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


You should take some time to study the case you cite.  Those who have know you are the "idiot".

JWK





*

To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

*


----------



## danielpalos

DarkFury said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> * When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No little retard we don't NOT when cities and people disobey the safety and security of others to clear their moral thoughts. Which plays to a second question.
> 
> What retards or tards think ANY social problem is cured by doing something illegal? Oh democrats!*
Click to expand...

The right doesn't seem to have a problem with our illegal drug war; does that answer your question.


----------



## Unkotare

danielpalos said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> * When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *No little retard we don't NOT when cities and people disobey the safety and security of others to clear their moral thoughts. Which plays to a second question.
> 
> What retards or tards think ANY social problem is cured by doing something illegal? Oh democrats!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right doesn't seem to have a problem with our illegal drug war; does that answer your question.
Click to expand...





"Illegal"?


----------



## Kondor3

DarkFury said:


> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*


Yep.

But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching _Pro-Illegals_ types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.

Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.

Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.

Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of _*Future*_ Invaders.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching _Pro-Illegals_ types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.
> 
> Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.
> 
> Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.
> 
> Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of _*Future*_ Invaders.
Click to expand...




Are you a puppy? Were you popped out, or were you born?


----------



## Syriusly

It is really pretty simple.

Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.

If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.


----------



## SwimExpert

johnwk said:


> You should take some time to study the case you cite.  Those who have know you are the "idiot".



_The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."_

You're posting a bunch of hot air.  This is an issue settled long, long ago.  The anchor baby loophole should be eliminated, there's no doubt about that.  But for you to sit here and say it's a myth makes you an idiot.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching _Pro-Illegals_ types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.
> 
> Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.
> 
> Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.
> 
> Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of _*Future*_ Invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a puppy? Were you popped out, or were you born?
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching _Pro-Illegals_ types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.
> 
> Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.
> 
> Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.
> 
> Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of _*Future*_ Invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a puppy? Were you popped out, or were you born?
Click to expand...

Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.


Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## gallantwarrior

DarkFury said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> *People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear DarkFury
> 1. the parents who committed the violations should owe restitution,
> and not get a free ride, the same as people who did NOT commit any violations
> 
> 2. why not have ALL citizens earn privileges? So it isn't discriminating on the basis of being born here or not.
> The price for citizenship is that you can't deliberately commit crimes, and run up the tab on taxpayers' expenses.
> Every citizen signs for legal and financial responsibility for costs incurred; if unable to, then a sponsor must cosign who accepts legal and financial responsibility.
> That means if you do commit premeditated violations, then you (or your sponsoring guardian or organization) agrees to pay restitution and any legal or adminstrative/prosecution costs so this doesn't burden the public/taxpayers.
> 
> That way whatever policy people follow, they pay for. Not someone else who didn't agree to pay extra
> when someone else commits crimes and costs taxpayers more money than they can afford.
> 
> As a condition on citizenship, teach each legal citizen the COST of different actions; so if they commit that deliberately, they have signed agreement to pay the cost for that.
> 
> Don't you think that might deter crime if people were held to pay the costs of their actions?
> 
> 3. have each district sign agreements, and people who can't agree can live in different districts with different tax rates depending on the policy for cost of violations. The districts that succeed in reducing crime rates get to invest more taxes in school and community programs and business development. If some districts want to specialize in mentoring people in recovery from addiction, abuse or crime, then the resources can be invested in those programs. So the Democrats who WANT to fund people in poverty until they become independent can sponsor such programs and participants in district DESIGNED to educate and house and train such populations. Instead of prisons, build schools and manage these programs where there is a check on the budget. Not just making money off crime where the contracts go to big industry profits. The money saved means support for the programs to help more people. So if the rehab is successful, crime is cut and costs are reduced, then those same resources can pay for housing, health care, job training and other services for enrollees in the program.
> 
> Earned Amnesty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The babies go on welfare.
> The parents get to stay.
> The parents get the checks.
> It's fraud via a proxy.
> They are using the proxy "child" to commit that fraud.
> They have ALREADY demeaned that child to that of a tool.
> DEPORT ONE AND ALL.*
Click to expand...


Well, and when the child reaches his/her/its majority, they can then submit application to be readmitted to the US as citizens based on their birth here.  If they wish to import their criminal parents, then they must follow the same rules and regulations as any other US citizen who wishes to gain admittance for family members of foreign origin.  Of course, the previous criminal activities of any family member should be taken into consideration when such applications are considered.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.




You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...



And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?


----------



## johnwk

SwimExpert said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should take some time to study the case you cite.  Those who have know you are the "idiot".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."_
> 
> You're posting a bunch of hot air.  This is an issue settled long, long ago.  The anchor baby loophole should be eliminated, there's no doubt about that.  But for you to sit here and say it's a myth makes you an idiot.
Click to expand...



You confuse the documented words of those who framed the 14th Amendment which explains its legislative intent as being hot air.  Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## JakeStarkey

It is a myth to allege that "if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child" should not become "a citizen of the United States upon birth."  The interpretation of the 14th Amendment does not support such an assertion.

Another myth is that the nativists construct accurately the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court agrees with you.
Click to expand...


Is that so?


in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884) our Supreme Court says:


*

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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. *


“Allegiance”! Keep that word in mind!



And in _IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the SCOTUS emphatically states with regard to the 14th Amendment:_


*

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. *


The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins: 

*

Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.' *


And how may an alien become subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States? Surprise! By our _naturalization_ process which requires an *“Oath of Allegiance to the United States”* which is taken during naturalization proceedings.

The following is the text of the *“Oath Of Allegiance”*

*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 the 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 *


By this oath, an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States. _

The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins: 


*

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.*


 Now why would the SCOTUS repeatedly make statements that the wording *'subject to its jurisdiction' *was intended to exclude from its operation *children of aliens born on American soil?* 

I would say it’s because the court is required to abide by the intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and, the statement made by the Court expresses the very intentions, as stated by Senator Howard who moved the Senate on May 30th, 1866, to take up H.J. Res. 127, which proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


Upon the Senate taking up the motion, Senator Howard states the following: 

*

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. (my emphasis) *see: *Con. Globe, 39th Congress (1866) page 2890*


Now, as to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always trotted out by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be *legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States,  and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.* 


Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of  Wong Kim Ark.  They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves.
_
JWK

*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court agrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that so?
Click to expand...



Yes, it is so.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Windship

[/QUOTE]You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.[/QUOTE]
*No little retard we don't ....*[/QUOTE]


We still have a country, coward. Weaklings like you are never part of the solution of problems.


R-word Spread the Word to End the Word[/QUOTE]

Im scarred. Your not because you totally do not understand the bad effects of illegal immigration. You see "people looking for a better life" Awwwww...
I see a country falling apart. If your correct, explain what has happened to our economy and wages, jobs and benefits the last 45 yrs .


----------



## Unkotare

Windship said:


> You see "people looking for a better life" Awwwww.......




You used quotation marks. Who are you quoting?


----------



## Windship

I used quotation marks didn't I?....jeez....


----------



## Windship

Uncle terrie, why don't you educate yourself?


----------



## Windship

....learn about the neg effects...


----------



## Windship

...so as to stop making yourself look like a fool.


----------



## Unkotare

Windship said:


> I used quotation marks didn't I?....




So, who were you quoting?


----------



## Unkotare

Windship said:


> Uncle terrie, why don't you educate yourself?




About what?


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...


Based upon the logic of your alternative you could also simply hope that winged unicorns fly the illegals out of the United States.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous- and the Supreme Court has recognized that.

You want to change the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution. 

Or you can hope that winged unicorns or a new Supreme Court will handle it 'someday'.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court agrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is so.
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...



_In regard to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always trotted out by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be _*legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.*_ 


Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK

*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)_


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> _it simply does not apply to ..._



It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuperDemocrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court agrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is so.
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _In regard to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always trotted out by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be _*legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.*_
> 
> 
> Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK
> 
> *
> The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)_
Click to expand...


Plyler v. Doe

Texas officials had argued that unauthorized immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
Click to expand...

Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

Doesn't exist yet.

1. we need to stack the deck in the Supreme Court for this purpose

2. next, we drum-up some Test Case or another, designed to put the question to the Test


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist yet.
> 
> 1. we need to stack the deck in the Supreme Court for this purpose
Click to expand...


LOL.....in other words you are just hoping for some winged unicorns to change the interpretation of the law.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon the logic of your alternative you could also simply hope that winged unicorns fly the illegals out of the United States.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous- and the Supreme Court has recognized that.
> 
> You want to change the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Or you can hope that winged unicorns or a new Supreme Court will handle it 'someday'.
Click to expand...

All it takes is for the Supreme Court to reverse its previous stand regarding 'clear and unambiguous language', and to read a different (and historically accurate) specific intent into the thing, in order to change the dynamic in a heartbeat. What are the odds? Beats the hell outta me. But it's worth examining, as an alternative to re-doing the 14th.


----------



## Kondor3

Syriusly said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist yet.
> 
> 1. we need to stack the deck in the Supreme Court for this purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.....in other words you are just hoping for some winged unicorns to change the interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Winged unicorns.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Syriusly

Kondor3 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based upon the logic of your alternative you could also simply hope that winged unicorns fly the illegals out of the United States.
> 
> The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous- and the Supreme Court has recognized that.
> 
> You want to change the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution.
> 
> Or you can hope that winged unicorns or a new Supreme Court will handle it 'someday'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is for the Supreme Court to reverse its previous stand regarding 'clear and unambiguous language', and to read a different (and historically accurate) specific intent into the thing, in order to change the dynamic in a heartbeat. What are the odds? Beats the hell outta me. But it's worth examining, as an alternative to re-doing the 14th.
Click to expand...


IF you want to make the change happen then the only action you can take is to try to pass a new Amendment.

If all you are doing is hoping the Supreme Court changes its mind, then you might as well be  hoping that winged unicorns swoop down and blow fairy dust to make your wishes come true.


----------



## Desperado

DarkFury said:


> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*


Same here in Florida.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.
Click to expand...




Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist yet.
Click to expand...



Yeeeeeeaaaaaaah.....good luck with that...


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
Click to expand...



_But is does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be _*legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.*_ 


Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK

*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)_


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?
Click to expand...

What country are you speaking for?


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeaaaaaaah.....good luck with that...
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is really pretty simple.
> 
> Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.
> 
> If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
> 
> 
> 
> Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't exist yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeeaaaaaaah.....good luck with that...
Click to expand...

There's ALWAYS a way to spin Law to suit one's purposes, when The People are motivated.

Timing, and choosing the right participants, is everything.

Never say never.


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _But is does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be _*legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.*_
> 
> 
> Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK
> 
> *
> The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)_
Click to expand...




It applies to everyone born in the U.S., not to an embassador or diplomat.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What country are you speaking for?
Click to expand...




The United States of America.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _But is does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be _*legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.*_
> 
> 
> Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK
> 
> *
> The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to everyone born in the U.S., not to an embassador or diplomat.
Click to expand...


"It"?.  Have no idea what you mean. But, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  This has been established by the cases I cited and from the 14th Amendment's legislative intent as expressed by those who framed it.

JWK


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....




The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Very long established law and practice disagree with you. Your mere insistence carries no power to alter reality.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? _Excellent_. That was the _purpose_ behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What country are you speaking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States of America.
Click to expand...

I was born here, the child of US citizens, the grandchild of US citizens, the great-grandchild of immigrants who came here *legally, with permission*, rather than the misbegotten spawn of Illegal Aliens. who pop-out litters of puppies just to anchor themselves to US soil.

You can *TRY* to eject me, if you like. Good luck with that. Have at it. Wake me up when you're ready.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> You can *TRY* to eject me, if you like. Good luck with that. Have at it. Wake me up when you're ready.




If we want you out, you're out. Don't pretend to be tough. Focus instead on earning our gracious permission to remain.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What country are you speaking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was born here....
Click to expand...



So remember your place and stop trying to denigrate your fellow citizens who were also born here and are every bit as much (at least) legitimate citizens as you. 

Real Americans don't want to hear little nobodies like you insulting US citizens.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can *TRY* to eject me, if you like. Good luck with that. Have at it. Wake me up when you're ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we want you out, you're out. Don't pretend to be tough. Focus instead on earning our gracious permission to remain.
Click to expand...

Wake me up when you're ready.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can *TRY* to eject me, if you like. Good luck with that. Have at it. Wake me up when you're ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we want you out, you're out. Don't pretend to be tough. Focus instead on earning our gracious permission to remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wake me up when you're ready.
Click to expand...



That's up to you. Behave yourself, boy.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What country are you speaking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was born here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So remember your place and stop trying to denigrate your fellow citizens who were also born here and are every bit as much (at least) legitimate citizens as you.
> 
> Real Americans don't want to hear little nobodies like you insulting US citizens.
Click to expand...

That's the point, Princess.

Anchor Babies should NOT be granted American citizenship.

Their legal status is the result of a loophole in the US Constitution that grants them an unanticipated and unintended status.

The loophole should be closed.

We can't do anything about those already granted that status.

But we sure-as-hell can do something about that in the future.

Apparently, that one hit a little close to the mark, eh?

Are you a former popped-out puppy of Illegal Aliens yourself?

Are you related to the popped-out puppies of Illegal Aliens?

Or are you just a misguided Internationalist Idiot who is willing for the country to take it up the keister, in allowing this flow of Invaders to continue and expand?

No thank you.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can *TRY* to eject me, if you like. Good luck with that. Have at it. Wake me up when you're ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we want you out, you're out. Don't pretend to be tough. Focus instead on earning our gracious permission to remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wake me up when you're ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's up to you. Behave yourself, boy.
Click to expand...

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Princess...


----------



## Kondor3

Now...

How do we stop the squealing spawn of these Illegal Aliens from becoming US citizens in future?


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?
> 
> 
> 
> What country are you speaking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was born here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So remember your place and stop trying to denigrate your fellow citizens who were also born here and are every bit as much (at least) legitimate citizens as you.
> 
> Real Americans don't want to hear little nobodies like you insulting US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Anchor Babies should NOT be granted American citizenship.....
Click to expand...



Losers like you should NOT be granted American citizenship, but unfortunately you were born here so you can stay until our patience with losers like you runs out.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Apparently, that one hit a little close to the mark, eh?.....




Nope, you fail again.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, that one hit a little close to the mark, eh?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you fail again.
Click to expand...

A guess...

In truth, I couldn't care less...

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil, you advocate against the best interests of the United States and The People.

You stand with the Invaders.

I stand with my country.

'Nuff said.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....




I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Desperate? Hardly. But you're a funny guy, I'll give ya that. And now that I've accomplished my intention of offending you by talking about Illegal Aliens popping-out puppies as Anchor Babies, you are dismissed. Go dry-hump somebody else's pants-cuff for a while, eh? Yer starting to bore the hell outta me - again.


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Desperate? .....
Click to expand...



Desperate. Why else would you feel the need to resort to such dishonesty? Maybe you're just stupid, but it sure does stink of desperation. Be careful if you want to be allowed to stay in my country, boy.


----------



## Kondor3

Unkotare said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Desperate? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Desperate. Why else would you feel the need to resort to such dishonesty? Maybe you're just stupid, but it sure does stink of desperation. Be careful if you want to be allowed to stay in my country, boy.
Click to expand...

You remind me of an old girlfriend... running her mouth long after she'd run out of things to say, and always needing to get-in the last word.

You tell 'em, tiger!


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
Click to expand...


And your documentation is?


JWK


----------



## Unkotare

Kondor3 said:


> [... old girlfriend... running her mouth long after she'd run out of things to say,.....




Maybe you should take her out of storage and re-inflate her so you'll finally have someone to talk to who won't see through all your childish, illogical nonsense. Good luck, Romeo.


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
Click to expand...



...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
Click to expand...


*Your disingenuousness is showing!*

Well, isn’t this special?  Our Agent Provocateur chooses to not provide supportive documentation to confirm the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother at the time of birth is a foreign national.

Of course, our Supreme Court addressed that assertion In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) in which the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

*“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.*

JWK



*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!*
Click to expand...


Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.
Click to expand...



Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.


With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

*”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*

In this thread we are talking about a foreign national who enters our country illegally, and gives birth to a child.  Under such circumstances the child's mother cannot be said to be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

See in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) in which the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

*“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.
*
The parents of Wong Kim Ark made themselves subject to our government's jurisdiction within the meaning of the 14th Amendment by settling in American for quite some time, by having a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and by carrying on a business.  


JWK



*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## JakeStarkey

jwk, your citizenship is no more valid than the illegal out of wedlock child today born in an Austin hospital.  SCOTUS has so opined the child is as much as citizen as you.  That will never change.


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....




What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts. Sorry chump, but you're wrong. The law is as has been interpreted by the court and applied for many, many years. Good luck with that new amendment you must be working on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

jwk, only a new amendment can change the 'anchor baby' situation.

That will not happen.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...


What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

*”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*


Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK


*
To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!
*


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.
Click to expand...




.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> _it simply does not apply to ..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _But is does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be _*legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.*_
> 
> 
> Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK
> 
> *
> The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It applies to everyone born in the U.S., not to an embassador or diplomat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It"?.  Have no idea what you mean. But, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  This has been established by the cases I cited and from the 14th Amendment's legislative intent as expressed by those who framed it.
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


No- that is just your claim. 

The Supreme Court has said otherwise- both with Wong Kim Ark- whose father and mother were both foreign nationals-and with 
*Plyler v. Doe*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wong does not uphold jwk's argument against anchor births.  Simple fact.

Either SCOTUS or amendment will be the only acceptable ways to change the law to what he wants.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> , the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness is showing!*
> 
> Well, isn’t this special?  Our Agent Provocateur chooses to not provide supportive documentation to confirm the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother at the time of birth is a foreign national.
> 
> Of course, our Supreme Court addressed that assertion In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) in which the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.*
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


And the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark specifically said that phrase is not precedent- and went onto say:

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


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> 
> 
> Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.
> 
> You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


Plyler v. Doe points out from Wong Kim Ark:

_
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.

Which is why not court has agreed with your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark
_


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> )
Click to expand...


By John's reasoning, only foreign nationals born here- and not employed in any capacity by the emperor of China would be legal citizens. By John's reasoning- if they were in the employ of Russia- it would be okay- only children of Chinese diplomats would be excluded.


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> 
> 
> Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.
> 
> You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe points out
Click to expand...


Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed. 

JWK

*"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], 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. 
*


----------



## Unkotare

How's that amendment coming along, champ?


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your documentation is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By John's reasoning, only foreign nationals born here- and not employed in any capacity by the emperor of China would be legal citizens. By John's reasoning- if they were in the employ of Russia- it would be okay- only children of Chinese diplomats would be excluded.
Click to expand...


I suspected the ethnic card would eventually be played by someone to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

BTW, the Wong Kim Ark case, which I agree with, is based on sound reasoning and does not violate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.


JWK
*
To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!
*


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> How's that amendment coming along, champ?



How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.

JWK


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that amendment coming along, champ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...




You've already been proven wrong. If you're so into self-abuse, pay someone to help you.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By John's reasoning, only foreign nationals born here- and not employed in any capacity by the emperor of China would be legal citizens. By John's reasoning- if they were in the employ of Russia- it would be okay- only children of Chinese diplomats would be excluded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspected the ethnic card would eventually be played by someone to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> BTW, the Wong Kim Ark case, which I agree with, is based on sound reasoning and does not violate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


Well I bet the Supreme Court is thrilled that you agree with Wong Kim Ark.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> 
> 
> Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.
> 
> You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe points out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'. 

As we all know- the 14th Amendment says that anyone born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- is a citizen

And as noted in Plyler


_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.

Every child born in the United States- other than the children of diplomats- is born within the jurisdiction of the United States. 

And this is why Conservatives who want to pretend that children born here of illegal parents are not citizens- hate Plyler v. Doe.
_
It, along with Wong Kim Ark, nails shut the argument.

Since that time no court has ruled that a child of illegal parents is not a citizen.

On the contrary- children born in the United States have their citizenship recognized regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You may argue that the citizenship rule is being misinterpreted- but you cannot deny that in fact- this is the current rule of the land. 
_

_


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that amendment coming along, champ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong..
Click to expand...


So you say but fail to substantiate.

JWK


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the  parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> 
> 
> Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.
> 
> You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe points out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.
Click to expand...



The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in 
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

*Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*



'_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_

JWK


*
To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!
*


----------



## Windship

.[/QUOTE]
A guess...

In truth, I couldn't care less...

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil, you advocate against the best interests of the United States and The People.

You stand with the Invaders.

I stand with my country.

'Nuff said.[/QUOTE]

How true. But there IS more. There is the ILL effects that the bleeding ignorant hearts always skirt and have no answer for.
Unions wiped out.
Stagnant or lower wages.
Loss of benefits.
Hazardous working conditions.
More hours to be worked.
Less taxes being paid so tax base gets depleted.
American economy suffers.
And we haven't even STARTED talking about hi tech H1B1 visas!


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that amendment coming along, champ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say but fail to substantiate.
Click to expand...



It has been explained to you over and over and over again. You are just pretending not to see like some dimwitted child who refuses to admit he's wrong.


----------



## Windship

[/QUOTE]

Your stupidity is showing.[/QUOTE]

Well princess, don't get ur panties in a twist, uve got him beat.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that amendment coming along, champ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say but fail to substantiate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you over and over and over again. You are just pretending not to see like some dimwitted child who refuses to admit he's wrong.
Click to expand...



You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion, while closing your eyes to documented facts.

JWK


----------



## johnwk

> .
> 
> When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil, you advocate against the best interests of the United States and The People.



Let us take a look at the destructive social and economic consequences in just one County in California inflicted upon its citizens in 1995 when this massive invasion of our borders began to accelerate. *CLICK HERE* and scroll to page 93 for testimony given by JOAN ZINSER before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 13, 1995


*Good morning Chairman Smith and other honorable members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I am Joan Zinser, Deputy Director of the San Diego County Department of Social Services. I direct the department's Income Maintenance Bureau, which has responsibility for AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility determinations. I am here today to tell you about the effects of illegal immigration on the County's assistance programs, and to present information regarding impacts on other county-funded services.*


*Impacts on San Diego County *

In 1993, illegal aliens in San Diego County were estimated to be 7.9% of the population, or a total of almost 220,000 illegal aliens in a county with a population of slightly over 2 1/2 million. A 1993 California State Senate report estimated that the State, local governments - primarily the County - and schools incurred $304 million in costs to provide services to illegal aliens. These costs were offset by only $60 million in taxes generated by illegal aliens - leaving a net impact of $244 million. 

*Welfare Costs.*

When a child is a US citizen, AFDC can be granted for the child but not the parent, if the parent is an undocumented immigrant. In 1992 there were 6,414 children born to undocumented immigrant parents in San Diego County hospitals. Each year, the illegal alien parents of nearly 2000 "citizen children" apply for and receive AFDC in San Diego County. The cumulative total of these "citizen child" cases continues to rise each year. 

Public assistance is intended to support the citizen child, but is paid to the illegal alien parent and is, no doubt, used by the parent to support the entire family. Costs for providing AFDC to "citizen children" cases in San Diego totaled $37 million in 1993 for approximately 5430 AFDC cases. 

Additional costs are incurred in Child Welfare Services. Combining costs for Out-of-Home and Family Maintenance services to families of illegal aliens results in an additional cost of $1.7 million. 

*Medicaid and Other Health-Related- Costs.*

Medicaid services are an increasingly large portion of the costs involved in illegal immigration. In 1992, Medicaid paid for 6,414 births illegal alien mothers. Although studies have shown that illegal aliens use fewer Medicaid services than do the age-equivalent members of the general population, significant costs remain. Delivery costs are greater for babies with mothers lacking adequate prenatal care and many medical conditions are treated more cost-effectively in their early stages. Infectious diseases are also a major concern of the County. San Diego county has historically carried large costs because of illegal aliens with these problems. Costs associated with providing emergency and pregnancy related needs to illegal aliens are paid for under "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." During the 1992 calendar year, an estimated $37 million was paid for "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." Other costs, including uncompensated care in hospitals, community clinics, and other health services elevated the 1993 total costs to over $50 million. 

*Criminal justice.*
A recent 90-day pilot project involved having INS Agents present in the county jails to interview those suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Approximately 20% of the persons booked into the jails during that pilot were identified as being illegal aliens. With annual bookings of approximatel 105,000 persons a year, it is estimated that up to 21,000 were illegal aliens.

According to the San Diego County District Attorney, 8,521 felony crimes were committed by illegal aliens between 1987 and 1992. Illegal aliens commit an estimated 22% of felony crimes committed in the county. The number of misdemeanors committed during the same period in San Diego County by illegal aliens is estimated to be 17,000. In 1993, approximately 15. 1 % of the costs -accrued in dealing with crimes were spent on illegal aliens. Costs for illegal aliens to the legal system totaled $151 million in the County of San Diego for 1993.

*Education.*

Recently, a video of students crossing the border and getting on a school bus in San Diego County in order to receive free education was shown nationwide. Locally, we have worked to make sure that this situation does not recur, but education of the children of illegal aliens is also a significant CDSt. It is estimated that $60 million was spent in San Diego County in 1993 for education of illegal aliens. 
________

And, more recently see:

*Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually*

*Dateline: December, 2004* 

*Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.*


*Testimony about "51 Florida Hospitals in trouble" due to illegal aliens expenses:*

Jun 10, 2008

*”No need to editorialize. Here is a sampling of the sort of facts the politicians and pro-illegal lobby want you to ignore, yet expect you to continue to bear the burden of. Is it any wonder scores of hospitals in border states and elsewhere have shut down or closed their ER units?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”*

*Texas Faces Rising Cost For Illegal Immigrant Care*

Aug 19, 2010

*Texas spent at least $250 million in the past year for medical care and imprisonment of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.*

*The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer*

May 6, 2013

*”In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.”*


*Judicial Watch: 165,900 Criminal Aliens into US Population Through April 2014*

Mar 2015

*”Nearly 166,000 convicted criminal illegal aliens were released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as of April, 2014. This is the analysis of 76 pages of DHS documents obtained by Judicial Watch via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The criminal illegal aliens include rapists, murderers and kidnappers.”*

_________

It is absolutely stunning that so many close their eyes to the devastating social and financial consequences inflicted upon American Citizens by illegal entrants .


JWK
*
 To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!*


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion



I "offered" exactly what you insisted upon when you were going on and on about "mother a foreign national." Instead of admitting that you had been proven exactly and specifically wrong, you tried to move the goal posts and pretend to be unaware of your failure. You act like a petulant, ignorant child and then make a pretense of concern for "facts." You're a clown, and your insistence cannot alter reality.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> 
> 
> Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.
> 
> You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe points out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in
> Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The Court states:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> 
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.


----------



## mdainvegas

Squirting a baby and then return home to China does not create a citizen.


----------



## Unkotare

mdainvegas said:


> Squirting a baby and then return home to China does not create a citizen.





Is that how you came into this world? Just a squirt?


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I posted are historical facts.  I wrote:
> 
> With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship
> 
> *”
> For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”*
> 
> 
> Contrary to your above assertion,_ "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", _the Court was *not *addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.
> 
> You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe points out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in
> Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The Court states:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> 
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...




MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?

The Court has repeatedly held 'subject to its jurisdiction', as found in the 14th Amendment, was specifically intended to exclude citizenship being granted at birth to children born on American soil of parents who are foreign nationals and not owing an allegiance to the United States?

Why are you ignoring this when a review of the debates which gave birth to the 14th Amendment establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the words "'subject to its jurisdiction thereof" means *“subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ as stated by Mr. TRUMBULL during the 14th Amendment debates __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down


Why are you ignoring the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as stated by John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.


I cannot understand why some people have no burning desire to seek out the truth, especially with regard to our Constitution, and prefer to obfuscate and intentionally derail a productive discussion seeking out the truth.  What on earth is the motivation behind such people? 


JWK



*Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "offered" .
Click to expand...


You have offered nothing but insulting remarks, and adolescent comments.


JWK


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "offered" .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have offered nothing but insulting remarks, and adolescent comments.
Click to expand...




I "offered" exactly what you insisted upon when you were going on and on about "mother a foreign national." Instead of admitting that you had been proven exactly and specifically wrong, you tried to move the goal posts and pretend to be unaware of your failure. You act like a petulant, ignorant child and then make a pretense of concern for "facts." You're a clown, and your insistence cannot alter reality.


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case




Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?


----------



## Toro

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?
Click to expand...


An Indiana court referenced Wok Kim Ark a few years ago regarding the definition of a natural born citizen, not Elk. 

Wok is what matters.


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?
Click to expand...


What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is the preponderance of the evidence which documents the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.  And the words "'subject to its jurisdiction', as found in the 14th Amendment was specifically intended to exclude citizenship being granted at birth to children born on American soil of parents who are foreign nationals and not owing an allegiance to the United States.


In addition, the Court has repeatedly held 'subject to its jurisdiction', as found in the 14th Amendment, was specifically intended to exclude citizenship being granted at birth to children born on American soil of parents who are foreign nationals and not owing an allegiance to the United States?

Why do you rely on Wong when a review of the debates which gave birth to the 14th Amendment establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the words "'subject to its jurisdiction thereof" means *“subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ as stated by Mr. TRUMBULL during the 14th Amendment debates __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down


Why are you relying on Wong when John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.


Why do you refuse to seek out the truth, especially with regard to our Constitution, and prefer to obfuscate and intentionally derail a productive discussion seeking out the truth. What on earth is the motivation behind your postings which ignore truth and facts? 


JWK



*Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ...*.  *
Click to expand...



You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?


----------



## johnwk

Unkotare said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ...*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?
Click to expand...


Oh, but I did answer your special math question.  Under the rules of constitutional law, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" which is found in the amendment.  Finding the  "preponderance of evidence" requires simple addition.

Were my questions to you too tough for you to answer?

JWK


----------



## Unkotare

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ...*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but I did answer your special math question.
Click to expand...



No, you didn't. "which number is higher, 84 or 98?"


----------



## Toro

Here is the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.  It references Wok Kim Ark in a case brought by two birfers.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe points out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in
> Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The Court states:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> 
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...


Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk? 

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen. 


Game over.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special math question, little genius: which number is higher, 84 or 98?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What matters, when adhering to the rules of constitutional law, is ...*.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. Too tough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but I did answer your special math question.  Under the rules of constitutional law, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" which is found in the amendment.  Finding the  "preponderance of evidence" requires simple addition.
> 
> Were my questions to you too tough for you to answer?
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


Precedence trumps your interpretation of what is the 'preponderance of evidance'.


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.
> 
> What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in
> Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The Court states:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> 
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
Click to expand...


Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

*"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."*

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

*“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

*“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“. *

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

*Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country* 

'_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_


Please stop pretending the 14th Amendment means something other than its text and legislative intent, which has been repeatedly addressed by our Supreme Court.


JWK
*
 The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in
> Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The Court states:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> 
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The current law is stated as follows:
> 
> *"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."*
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )
Click to expand...


Your opinion is noted. However, Wong Kim Ark is precedent- and Wong Kim Ark firmly established that a child born of foreign parents in the United States is born a citizen.

And the text is quite clear- anyone born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- except the children of diplomats- or to go back to Elk- at that time certain Native Americans because of their citizenship status- a condition that no longer applies.

Please stop pretending that Wong Kim Ark is not the precedent that the Supreme Court and indeed the Federal government relies upon now- not Elk or Slaughterhouse.


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States.  However, in
> Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The Court states:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . .  must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> 
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The current law is stated as follows:
> 
> *"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."*
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.
Click to expand...


The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:



> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down.
> 
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> 
> And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“. *
> 
> And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_



I had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK


*
 The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## Toro

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The current law is stated as follows:
> 
> *"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."*
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down.
> 
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> 
> And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“. *
> 
> And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Click to expand...


Well, take it to the courts, then. 

Given that courts have referred to Wok for over the past 100 years, best of luck to you.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The current law is stated as follows:
> 
> *"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."*
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down.
> 
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> 
> And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“. *
> 
> And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> JWK
> )
Click to expand...


I have no problem with you having your opinion. 

But I happen to agree with the Supreme Court- which clarified what jurisdiction means in Wong Kim Ark- and that is the controlling precedent both in law and in fact.


----------



## johnwk

Syriusly said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).  JUSTICE GRAY also delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, March 28, 1898.  Why do you rely upon the Wong case and not the Elk case when the Elk case is in harmony with the very intentions for which the words* 'subject to its jurisdiction' *were added to the 14th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The current law is stated as follows:
> 
> *"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."*
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down.
> 
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> 
> And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“. *
> 
> And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> JWK
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with you having your opinion.
> 
> But I happen to agree with the Supreme Court- which clarified what jurisdiction means in Wong Kim Ark- and that is the controlling precedent both in law and in fact.
Click to expand...


Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

JWK


----------



## danielpalos

Why is this even an issue?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Why are we losing money on Commerce at our borders.


----------



## ChrisL

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do about those who are already here unless they are in custody for committing a crime.  It would be too unrealistic and expensive to try to round up ALL of the illegal immigrants and their children and then to deport them.  So, this is what we will probably end up doing, granting amnesty to those already here.  

I just hope they tighten up on things after this and try to prevent any MORE from entering the country illegally.  We have enough people, enough problems, not enough money and not enough resources or jobs for all of these people.  If we keep allowing people into the country, we will end up like Sweden where they have housing crises, etc.


----------



## Oldglory1

ChrisL said:


> Unfortunately, there is not much we can do about those who are already here unless they are in custody for committing a crime.  It would be too unrealistic and expensive to try to round up ALL of the illegal immigrants and their children and then to deport them.  So, this is what we will probably end up doing, granting amnesty to those already here.
> 
> I just hope they tighten up on things after this and try to prevent any MORE from entering the country illegally.  We have enough people, enough problems, not enough money and not enough resources or jobs for all of these people.  If we keep allowing people into the country, we will end up like Sweden where they have housing crises, etc.



Amnesty is NOT the answer.   The solution is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and many if not most will self-deport.


----------



## Syriusly

johnwk said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?
> 
> Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.
> 
> As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.
> 
> 
> Game over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The current law is stated as follows:
> 
> *"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."*
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”* __ see *SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)* 1st column halfway down.
> 
> 
> And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as *“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”* *Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866)* middle column half way down.
> 
> 
> And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:
> 
> *“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“. *
> 
> And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:
> 
> *Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country*
> 
> '_This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, *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*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> JWK
> )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with you having your opinion.
> 
> But I happen to agree with the Supreme Court- which clarified what jurisdiction means in Wong Kim Ark- and that is the controlling precedent both in law and in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of Wong Kim Ark is substantiated.


----------



## GHook93

BULLDOG said:


> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You  do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Unkotare

GHook93 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You  do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
> ..
Click to expand...



It won't be.


----------



## Syriusly

GHook93 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You  do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


If you are counting on the Supreme Court to change the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has been in effect for the last 100 years......

Then you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny......


----------



## GHook93

Unkotare said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You  do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be.
Click to expand...


The same was said about the separate but equal clause. That stood as the law is the land for more than a half century.

Get this case in front of this SCOTUS and I think it would be 5/4 affirming. Get it in front of a different one and it could be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly

GHook93 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DarkFury said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You  do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same was said about the separate but equal clause. That stood as the law is the land for more than a half century.
> 
> Get this case in front of this SCOTUS and I think it would be 5/4 affirming. Get it in front of a different one and it could be different.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.......

Bottom line- if this is an actual concern for the those who complain about so-called anchor babies- the way to affect change is with a Constitutional Amendment.

Hoping that some court in the future may possibly, maybe change the interpretation to your liking is nothing more than wishful thinking.


----------



## prison/con.net

we can pass a law making it a FELONY to be in the US without documentation. We can start horsehipping on public tv, anyone convicted of hiring an illegal.  Believe me, that will get rid of   3/4 's of them, right NOW, and it's easily done.


----------



## prison/con.net

then a double fence can be thrown across our borders, with rifle towers every 1/4 mile, no shooting except in the kill zone between the fences. That's worked fine for our prisons for over a century now.  it's very easy to create such a fence. a 5 ton truck and crew of men can build a mile per day of such a fence. We can have it in place in a month, if we want. Stake down and tie together 3 coils of razor wire. tie 2 more coils atop the 3, and 1 more atop the 2. presto,  5 ft high fence, plenty enough to slow them down enough for the riflemen to kill them. Everyone will know, nobody will try it.


----------



## Unkotare

prison/con.net said:


> We can start horsehipping on public tv,...




No, we can't.


----------



## Syriusly

Unkotare said:


> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can start horsehipping on public tv,...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we can't.
Click to expand...


Maybe we can start horsehipping.......I believe that is an Olympic equestrian event.....


----------



## Unkotare

Windship said:


> Uncle terrie, why don't you educate yourself?





About what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

prison/con.net said:


> we can pass a law making it a FELONY to be in the US without documentation. We can start horsehipping on public tv, anyone convicted of hiring an illegal.  Believe me, that will get rid of   3/4 's of them, right NOW, and it's easily done.


Passing a law that you are a bonafide idiot would be easier to pass.


----------



## BULLDOG

prison/con.net said:


> we can pass a law making it a FELONY to be in the US without documentation. We can start horsehipping on public tv, anyone convicted of hiring an illegal.  Believe me, that will get rid of   3/4 's of them, right NOW, and it's easily done.



Horsehipping?  That's just for people who love their horse in that special way.


----------

