All persons born or naturalized in the United States...

[Camp]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

 

[Auld Phart]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

 

[Redfish]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

 

[healthmyths]

and the basement dweller......babbles on

Dispute it rather then attack the messenger. Your attack simply shows the weakness of your statement!
Refute it with facts and links. Please.
And the US is not the only country with the concern...

You may not be aware that the mere birth of a child in North America does not guarantee the child nor their parents the right to live in the United States or Canada, at least not until the child reaches the age of majority.
Put another way, the family can be and often is removed from the U.S. or Canada, even if they have a native born child, because they do not have lawful status in the country.
The concern over birthright citizenship has also been raised in Canada by the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who has vowed to crackdown on the situation.
Immigration: The Myth Of The 'Anchor Baby'

 

[Wildman]

Thanks! That explains a lot of your posts. A LOT of them

like maybe 99.999999999991% ....... ...........

 

[Camp]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

It would only be on point if you assume that British royalty travel on regular passports or are not considered by the USA to be eligible for diplomatic immunity or legal agents of Great Britain. The royal family represent official business of the royal family and Great Britain wherever they travel. As such they are official diplomats and ambassador's and carry diplomatic passports issued by GB. They are the very people mentioned in the amendment that are excluded.
The French couple would not be excluded because they were not diplomats or ambassadors.
Now lets hear your explanation why the response is inaccurate.

 

[Redfish]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

It would only be on point if you assume that British royalty travel on regular passports or are not considered by the USA to be eligible for diplomatic immunity or legal agents of Great Britain. The royal family represent official business of the royal family and Great Britain wherever they travel. As such they are official diplomats and ambassador's and carry diplomatic passports issued by GB. They are the very people mentioned in the amendment that are excluded.
The French couple would not be excluded because they were not diplomats or ambassadors.
Now lets hear your explanation why the response is inaccurate.

the British royalty example was a joke in order to make a point. But to take it to the next level of absurdity, lets say that the bastard son of prince william and his italian girlfriend were in the USA on normal passports and had a child while in the US. That child would be in line of british royalty and, under your definition, would be eligible to run for president.

The point is that the 14th was written to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, the current illegal alien problem was not contemplated by the authors and is currently being misinterpreted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Was there even such a thing as an illegal immigrant in 1866?

Who were they?

 

[Camp]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

It would only be on point if you assume that British royalty travel on regular passports or are not considered by the USA to be eligible for diplomatic immunity or legal agents of Great Britain. The royal family represent official business of the royal family and Great Britain wherever they travel. As such they are official diplomats and ambassador's and carry diplomatic passports issued by GB. They are the very people mentioned in the amendment that are excluded.
The French couple would not be excluded because they were not diplomats or ambassadors.
Now lets hear your explanation why the response is inaccurate.

the British royalty example was a joke in order to make a point. But to take it to the next level of absurdity, lets say that the bastard son of prince william and his italian girlfriend were in the USA on normal passports and had a child while in the US. That child would be in line of british royalty and, under your definition, would be eligible to run for president.

The point is that the 14th was written to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, the current illegal alien problem was not contemplated by the authors and is currently being misinterpreted.

You are making up a scenario in desperation that would and could never occur. Prince William would not be traveling with other than a diplomatic passport unless he gave up his royal standing. His child by an Italian mistress would not be in line to the throne in any case.
You have no authority or credibility to judge why the 14th was eventually passed and how it is interpreted. Constitutional scholars from all sides have spoken and don't agree with you and those promoting the nonsense you promote. Arm chair scholars are like arm chair generals. Mostly they promote nonsense and misinformed opinions that along with the price of a cup of coffee are worth a cup of coffee.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, if Prince William and Kate had been in the US when George was born....

He would not only be in line for the English Crown, but eligible to run for president?


A couple from France attending Harvard have a child, and go home after graduating, the child is eligible for our highest office?

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

It would only be on point if you assume that British royalty travel on regular passports or are not considered by the USA to be eligible for diplomatic immunity or legal agents of Great Britain. The royal family represent official business of the royal family and Great Britain wherever they travel. As such they are official diplomats and ambassador's and carry diplomatic passports issued by GB. They are the very people mentioned in the amendment that are excluded.
The French couple would not be excluded because they were not diplomats or ambassadors.
Now lets hear your explanation why the response is inaccurate.

the British royalty example was a joke in order to make a point. But to take it to the next level of absurdity, lets say that the bastard son of prince william and his italian girlfriend were in the USA on normal passports and had a child while in the US. That child would be in line of british royalty and, under your definition, would be eligible to run for president.

The point is that the 14th was written to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, the current illegal alien problem was not contemplated by the authors and is currently being misinterpreted.

Then let those who support it pass legislation denying the birthright babies citizenship.

 

[TemplarKormac]

• Anyone born inside the United States *

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

The common theme is "if one parent is an alien and the other a citizen." I don't know what you were hoping to accomplish with that. Given that I've cited the two main architects of the 14th Amendment who say that aliens and children of aliens are excluded from the Amendment's purview. When both parents are aliens, this list of yours does not apply.

 

[NYcarbineer]

• Anyone born inside the United States *

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

The common theme is "if one parent is an alien and the other a citizen." I don't know what you were hoping to accomplish with that. Given that I've cited the two main architects of the 14th Amendment who say that aliens and children of aliens are excluded from the Amendment's purview. When both parents are aliens, this list of yours does not apply.

If you're so certain the writers of the Amendment meant what you claim they meant,

why wasn't citizenship immediately and thereafter denied to children of immigrants?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you're so certain the writers of the Amendment meant what you claim they meant,

why wasn't citizenship immediately and thereafter denied to children of immigrants?

Loaded question. If you can't read and comprehend plain English, that sucks for you.

If you're so certain the writers of the Amendment meant what you claim they meant, what makes you think they didn't do just that? Hmm?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you're so certain the writers of the Amendment meant what you claim they meant,

why wasn't citizenship immediately and thereafter denied to children of immigrants?

Loaded question. If you can't read and comprehend plain English, that sucks for you.

If you're so certain the writers of the Amendment meant what you claim they meant, what makes you think they didn't do just that? Hmm?

Nice dodge of the question. Millions of immigrants were pouring into the country in the late 19th early 20th century.
Were their children born here being given citizenship?

Why?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nice dodge of the question. Millions of immigrants were pouring into the country in the late 19th early 20th century.
Were their children born here being given citizenship?

Yes! Once their parents became citizens they were granted citizenship too! Wow.

Twenty million immigrants came to the US and were legally naturalized from 1880-1920. They applied for and in most cases were granted citizenship. Given that citizenship, the 14th Amendment would cover them and their children, and make their children citizens upon birth. With that, they were no longer encumbered by the "alien" status.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nice dodge of the question. Millions of immigrants were pouring into the country in the late 19th early 20th century.
Were their children born here being given citizenship?

Yes! Once their parents became citizens they were granted citizenship too! Wow.

Twenty million immigrants came to the US and were legally naturalized from 1880-1920. They applied for and in most cases were granted citizenship. Given that citizenship, the 14th Amendment would cover them and their children, and make their children citizens upon birth. With that, they were no longer encumbered by the "alien" status.

The 14th amendment says all citizens 1) born OR 2) naturalized in the US...

A child born in the US to parents before their naturalization would fall into the first category above.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and the basement dweller......babbles on

The idea that the 14th was intended for criminals who are here illegally is as stupid as it always was. That was never the intent of the writers and obviously so. It's like a shoplifter demanding what they stole be fixed under the warranty

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, in addition to being ignorant and ridiculous.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment refers to those born in the United States, acknowledging the fact of their citizenship, in no way 'benefiting' their parents, regardless their immigration status.

In fact, there is no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' as the parents of US citizen children are indeed subject to deportation:

"In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children."

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Taking a second look at your question it occurs to me how stupid those questions are. I guess I fell for your prank by answering it. Good one.

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

It would only be on point if you assume that British royalty travel on regular passports or are not considered by the USA to be eligible for diplomatic immunity or legal agents of Great Britain. The royal family represent official business of the royal family and Great Britain wherever they travel. As such they are official diplomats and ambassador's and carry diplomatic passports issued by GB. They are the very people mentioned in the amendment that are excluded.
The French couple would not be excluded because they were not diplomats or ambassadors.
Now lets hear your explanation why the response is inaccurate.

the British royalty example was a joke in order to make a point. But to take it to the next level of absurdity, lets say that the bastard son of prince william and his italian girlfriend were in the USA on normal passports and had a child while in the US. That child would be in line of british royalty and, under your definition, would be eligible to run for president.

The point is that the 14th was written to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, the current illegal alien problem was not contemplated by the authors and is currently being misinterpreted.

Then let those who support it pass legislation denying the birthright babies citizenship.

Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The question was not nearly as stupid as the answer.

Well done

Your question was right on point. Under the current interpretation of the 14th amendment the heir to the british throne would also be an american citizen eligible to run for president. Could we make England, Scotland, and Ireland the 51st -53rd states?

It would only be on point if you assume that British royalty travel on regular passports or are not considered by the USA to be eligible for diplomatic immunity or legal agents of Great Britain. The royal family represent official business of the royal family and Great Britain wherever they travel. As such they are official diplomats and ambassador's and carry diplomatic passports issued by GB. They are the very people mentioned in the amendment that are excluded.
The French couple would not be excluded because they were not diplomats or ambassadors.
Now lets hear your explanation why the response is inaccurate.

the British royalty example was a joke in order to make a point. But to take it to the next level of absurdity, lets say that the bastard son of prince william and his italian girlfriend were in the USA on normal passports and had a child while in the US. That child would be in line of british royalty and, under your definition, would be eligible to run for president.

The point is that the 14th was written to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, the current illegal alien problem was not contemplated by the authors and is currently being misinterpreted.

Then let those who support it pass legislation denying the birthright babies citizenship.

Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Probably. Then we'd have to hear from the RWnuts that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional ruling.

 

[Montrovant]

• Anyone born inside the United States *

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

The common theme is "if one parent is an alien and the other a citizen." I don't know what you were hoping to accomplish with that. Given that I've cited the two main architects of the 14th Amendment who say that aliens and children of aliens are excluded from the Amendment's purview. When both parents are aliens, this list of yours does not apply.

Actually, that theme of "if one parent is an alien and the other a citizen" is common to children born outside of the United States. Those particular rules obviously have nothing to do with anchor babies.