Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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 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?
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.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.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?
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.
Wrong, the intent of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not the children of illegal immigrants. A constitutional supreme court would look at the intent of the drafters of the 14th and rule that it was currently be misapplied to the offspring of those here illegally.
Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.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?
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.
Probably. Then we'd have to hear from the RWnuts that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional ruling.
Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Wrong, the intent of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not the children of illegal immigrants. A constitutional supreme court would look at the intent of the drafters of the 14th and rule that it was currently be misapplied to the offspring of those here illegally.
That is a cursory evaluation and has led to much misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment. Believe it or not, the authors and congressman who voted on the Amendment saw the issue as more than just a resolution of slave citizenship issues.
www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
The point being is they were not suppose to be citizens in the first place. Liberal group think liken yours magically ignores the second part of the clause. Why? Well you because you ignorantly think you are helping someone. the political class? Because that is how they invalidate all actual citizens votes.deporting american citizens....i just cant wrap my head around that concept
They don't need to idiot it is already there in the Constitution. It is you guys who need to amend the constitutionIt 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.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?
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.
There we have it our local jack ass that ignores the full amendment and the history behind while acting like a scholar. Are you ever right?This fails as a false comparison fallacy, in addition to being ignorant and ridiculous.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
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
He quoted the constitution. ... readthat is gonna be a long uphill battle....proving its in the constitution
One could argue that the primary intent was to bring a halt to police brutality being waged on former slaves in the south and to give them second amendment rights, but you didn't read the link full of details about the intent and why the amendment was needed to address a wide range of issues that protected give specific rights to former slaves, the writers of the amendment saw an opportunity to address a variety of issues and dis so. Immigration issues were in fact a problem of the day and predicted to get worse if certain issues were not addressed.Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Probably. Then we'd have to hear from the RWnuts that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional ruling.Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Wrong, the intent of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not the children of illegal immigrants. A constitutional supreme court would look at the intent of the drafters of the 14th and rule that it was currently be misapplied to the offspring of those here illegally.
That is a cursory evaluation and has led to much misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment. Believe it or not, the authors and congressman who voted on the Amendment saw the issue as more than just a resolution of slave citizenship issues.
www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
yes, they addressed other issues like the children of legitimate foreign diplomats. But the primary intent was to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, but for that the 14th would never have been considered necessary.
Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Probably. Then we'd have to hear from the RWnuts that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional ruling.Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Wrong, the intent of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not the children of illegal immigrants. A constitutional supreme court would look at the intent of the drafters of the 14th and rule that it was currently be misapplied to the offspring of those here illegally.
That is a cursory evaluation and has led to much misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment. Believe it or not, the authors and congressman who voted on the Amendment saw the issue as more than just a resolution of slave citizenship issues.
www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
yes, they addressed other issues like the children of legitimate foreign diplomats. But the primary intent was to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, but for that the 14th would never have been considered necessary.
The parents became naturalized.Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Probably. Then we'd have to hear from the RWnuts that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional ruling.Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.Then let those who support it pass legislation denying the birthright babies citizenship.
Wrong, the intent of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not the children of illegal immigrants. A constitutional supreme court would look at the intent of the drafters of the 14th and rule that it was currently be misapplied to the offspring of those here illegally.
That is a cursory evaluation and has led to much misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment. Believe it or not, the authors and congressman who voted on the Amendment saw the issue as more than just a resolution of slave citizenship issues.
www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
yes, they addressed other issues like the children of legitimate foreign diplomats. But the primary intent was to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, but for that the 14th would never have been considered necessary.
How did a child born to immigrant parents in the 1870's or thereabouts acquire citizenship?
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, in addition to being ignorant and ridiculous.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
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
Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.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.
Probably. Then we'd have to hear from the RWnuts that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional ruling.Which would be struck down as un-Constitutional, in violation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.Then let those who support it pass legislation denying the birthright babies citizenship.
Wrong, the intent of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the children of freed slaves, not the children of illegal immigrants. A constitutional supreme court would look at the intent of the drafters of the 14th and rule that it was currently be misapplied to the offspring of those here illegally.
That is a cursory evaluation and has led to much misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment. Believe it or not, the authors and congressman who voted on the Amendment saw the issue as more than just a resolution of slave citizenship issues.
www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
yes, they addressed other issues like the children of legitimate foreign diplomats. But the primary intent was to give citizenship to the children of freed slaves, but for that the 14th would never have been considered necessary.
How did a child born to immigrant parents in the 1870's or thereabouts acquire citizenship?
