"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[protectionist]

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

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

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

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

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

 

[protectionist]

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

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

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

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

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

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

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

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

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

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

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

 

[protectionist]

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

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

Mark

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

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

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

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

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

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

Mark

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

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

All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

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

Mark

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

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

All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.

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

 

[Syriusly]

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

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

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

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

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

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

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

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

 

[Oldglory1]

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

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

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Flopper]

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

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

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

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

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The amendment actually reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

 

[Spare_change]

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

- - Tarzana Joe

 

[protectionist]

Ah, no. They clearly were not legally right.

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

Mark

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

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

All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.

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

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

 

[protectionist]

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

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

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[protectionist]

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

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

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

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The amendment actually reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

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

 

[Synthaholic]

DEPORT HER!!!!

 

[protectionist]

DEPORT HER!!!!

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

 

[Unkotare]

DEPORT HER!!!!

Why?

 

[Syriusly]

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

In case there is some confusion, the first sentence in the 14th amendment reads.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." I don't see how congress could make it any clearer than this.

14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The amendment actually reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't answer it.

Here let me ask the question again

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to stop parroting your same old crap.

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

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

All that is needed is a repeat of Operation Wetback.

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

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

American citizens are not illegal aliens.

 

[protectionist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although Howard may have intended that the amendment read,
will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

The amendment actually reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Howard's intent is irrelevant, nor why his intent was not expressed in the amendment. It is what the Congress intended and the states that ratified the amendment intended and their intend is in black and white in the first sentence of the amendment.

FALSE! Howard's intent is 100% relevant$

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

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

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

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

 

[protectionist]

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

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

The way Jacob Howard stated it.

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

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

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

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

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

You didn't answer it.

Here let me ask the question again

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

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

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

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